I agree with you that we should absolutely be conservative with the number of views a developer has to code against in their extension, but in this case, the alternative of having to manage two extensions doesn’t actually reduce that. Should we to not add the isBitsEnabled flag and let one extension handle both views, it would increase the amount of duplication across the two extensions, not to mention doubling the scope for backwards compatibility.
If we want to get to a long term state of having a minimum number of views per extension, we absolutely need to reduce the friction of releasing and maintaining near-duplicate extensions. Perhaps having different extension “modes” or “flavors” that all maintain a common release version and name would reduce some of the pain in that area, but until then I think that the trade off of more views to handle versus maintaining two extensions is absolutely in favor of more views.