This discussion may contain spoilers!
Or more specifically, one. That last decision before the ending was tense; Kenny was indeed a psychopath who was a danger to Clem, but he'd done so much to help her – on the other hand, Jane had put her own lifestyle on hold specifically to help Clem, but was quite unwilling to trust and see the good in others (to the extent of provoking and endangering others to prove her point). I personally sided with Jane, then later let the family in; weariness is good, but survival means nothing if you lose your humanity and trust in others.
Upon seeing the Kenny ending however, I was annoyed; really Telltale, the mythical Wellington is a legit place? All that sacrifice and effort actually got rewarded? For a game that talked about the harsh realities of that situation, this sort of ending undercuts most of it's message – yes, perhaps an ending where Kenny growls at Clem and increasingly slips into madness would have been a bit bleak, but having everything turn out for the best is a poor way to avoid that; could of easily gone with a similar ending to Jane's, except have them be the ones deciding to join a larger group they see or keep going for example.
The truth of it is, inherantly both Jane and Kenny are 'good people doing bad things in a worse situation'. Jane was wrong for putting AJ's life at risk to prove her point, but Kenny was indeed as bad as she had claimed – what if Clem accidently hurt AJ or something further down the line? Kenny and Clem may be close, but that may push him too far. It feels almost like the game's implying letting someone whose only tried to help you die, even to a broken friend, is the 'best option' through this sort of ending. It is facepalm worthy. There is no 'right option' in this situation; merely options, and neither should be better than the other. Kenny was just lucky it all happened to work out for the two as opposed to blowing up in their face like even he surely expected by that point.