On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 21:06, Konstantin Kharlamov hi-angel@yandex.ru wrote:
On 30.01.2019 20:13, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
You are the only one who's "discussing" it. I asked you to show convincing numbers, so you have a path forward. Until you come back with the numbers, there's no reason to continue the argument.
You see, this is exactly where you take your own opinion above anything else. There *are* other (mentioned) reasons for including the patch beside "convincing numbers", but you silently decided for everyone else on the list.
As someone else on the list, that's not quite how I see this conversation. Even if it *were* though, saying "no" is pretty much a maintainer's prerogative.
The most precious resource we need to conserve is not branch prediction cycles, it's developers' cycles. That's why you shouldn't change things that don't need changing, you shouldn't add complexity that isn't needed
Well, I guessed that by burden you mean code complexity. And I already replied on that one, at least in the mail with pros'n'cons. But you didn't reply, which made me think you might have meant something else on your mind. Discussion doesn't work when you expose your disagreement by a blunt force, such as silently rejecting patches.
I'd hardly call this thread silent. If I can try to give a constructive suggestion though, I get the impression that you put a lot of value on the patch status as displayed on the status page. That status isn't that important; the status page is meant to give people more insight into different reasons a patch might not have been committed, and avoid losing track of patches. Your path forward is still to try to make a more convincing argument, regardless of what the status page may say.