Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: >>> So, "thanks but no thanks"? >> >> Pretty much. Thanks for the detailed list of places requiring changes, but >> I've seperated the changes into next_dialog removal, and other cleanup. > > There was no "other cleanup" in the patch I submitted, was there? I > pinky-swore that there wouldn't be; I'd hate to have inadvertantly reneged on > such a sacred oath! ;-)
Oops. Seems I mis-remembered. It was the context refactoring that I stripped out to minimalize the size of your patch. The other cleanup was things that could be done that I noticed whilst understanding your patch. > Can I at least get some changelog credit for the "detailed list"? Of course. >> Smaller patches = faster reviews. > > Soo, is there any point to me continuing big chooser development? I really > have very little interest in going to a bunch of trouble getting a working > patch together only to have it serve as a 'list of places' for somebody else > to reinvent the same wheels. Of course! There is a significant difference between adding functionality (big chooser), and removing dead code (next_dialog). In the latter case, once I understood what your patch did, it was trivial to come up with a slightly different way to remove the dead code, with much less impact on the surrounding code. I've no intention of re-inventing big chooser. It would be nice if you opted for slightly more modular concept patches, but even if you do produce large multi-concept patches, I want that big chooser too much to not help out seperating what you produce. It'll just take longer to integrate. Max.
