Thanks for your point. I'll have a fork file of module with this fix for GNU Artanis to not stop the current GNU development and practice on product practices. This will be removed when Guile merge it or any other convinced proposal.
The simple review policy will be mentioned when it's necessary. Thanks for all the time investment on this patch. Best regards. On Wed, Aug 20, 2025, 21:20 Maxime Devos <maximede...@telenet.be> wrote: > > On 8/20/2025 1:45 PM, Nala Ginrut wrote: > > Please don't make the simple patch too complex to discuss. > > Our current policy is to accept patch in a simple process. And we > > don't want newbies found it's too hard to be reviewed in a just one > > line patch. > > > > Could you please elaborate on your point in shorter description? > > > > Best regards. > > (0) there is, currently, no Guile 'policy'. Things are a matter of > general ethics, morality, generic goodness/badness, general software > development recommendations, personal opinion ... Simple process is > good but that's not 'policy'. You're presenting things as more official > than they are. > > (1) I'm not making it complex. > > (2) I'm not making it hard to review. Shortness is not easiness. > Shortness can be vagueness. People need clear information to act upon, > and this clarity can take time/length. Writing _clear_ text can take a > lot of space and time. Shortening it while preserving clarity can reduce > space, but also increases time -- often, long text takes less time than > short text! (can hurry it up, but then it gets vague) And reading takes > much less time than writing. So, unless there are many actors involved, > or a high time imbalance between the small number of actors, shortening > makes no sense. > > (3) I structured the text such that you can skip over individual parts > if you get the message early, and within the text I already provided > some summaries. > > (4) do consider looking at the metaphorical mirror when writing such > things ... you were rather vague in your descriptions about what the bug > is, which makes things complex to review. And you ignore relevant > questions, and refuse to read carefully written detailed responses --> > complex review. Review does not only cost time/effort for the patch > submitter, but also for the reviewer. > > (5) it's not just a 'one line patch'. Its a multiple-line patch > (documentation changes!), that changes semantics (things being done in > another thread can be unexpected), that doesn't work in all cases (no > thread support), does not identify the cause (see the mail you refuse to > read), is vague about what the bug is. > > (6) I dissected the bug for (generic)you to find its likely cause, and a > proper fix, to make the cause and proper fix explicit. That's like the > opposite of making it complex or hard for newbies. > > TLDR(to long didn't read) I refuse, just read the text. It isn't policy > to be disrespectful, and disrespectfulness is bad. > >
