Attention is currently required from: laforge, pespin.

1 comment:

Patchset:
- Patch Set #3:
  Pau, every so often your CR uses stylistic means of downplaying a submitted patch without a sound base for it.
  Wording like these come to mind:
  - "playing around with" belittles a technically sound implementation.
  - "all this foo" is too general and diffuse, CR needs to be on point.
  - "everything ends up broken" without anything broken being present.
  Fine if you want to keep it in 2 patches, but I wouldn't merge this one until the other one is ready and can be merged together.
  Kindly state your reason for this statement, it seems unqualified to me.
  And kindly state your reason directly at the start of a CR discussion, next time. I would appreciate that very much.
  I am not playing around, I know what I am doing, and decided things for sound reasons. I need you to acknowledge that.
  If you disagree, then let's stay with the sound arguments against it. Thanks!
  Also let's discuss in the proper place. CR is bringing up threading details in CR on patches without any threading. This patch here is not multi threaded. For threading, let's discuss at the patch introducing the nft thread.

To view, visit change 36385. To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit settings.