On 8/20/2025 4:02 PM, Felix Lechner wrote:
On Wed, Aug 20 2025, Maxime Devos wrote:
Anything in particular?
No, the whole thing. Your responses were proficient and comprehensive
(too comprehensive for Nala) yet it seems to me that you lost sight of
the purpose of the transaction.
Nala found a bug and, being a user, would like to see it fixed without
excessive discussion. It's not a contest.
Nala, please chime in. I don't mean to put words into your mouth.
There is no such thing as 'too comprehensive'.
All the text was about identifying and fixing the bug, so I don't get
where you get 'lost sight of purpose of ...' from. Nowhere did I invoke
some kind of developer/reviewer/user/... distinction (liking to getting
things fixed easy is not dependent on any such categorisation).
Nowhere did I turn it into a contest. If anything, Nala tries to turn it
into a compactness-despite-the-costs contest. Sometimes when writing
stuff there is simply a lot to write about. Also, please don't turn
things into a 'minimise discussion' contest. Don't lose sight of how the
purpose is to fix bugs and such, the purpose isn't review-codegolf.
Also, _what_ excessive discussion? Like, it goes like:
(1) Nala sends patch. Some bug is mentioned with a vague explanation,
which is later known to be misidentified. At this time, the patch is
_underdiscussed_.
(2) I notice issue about calling current-processor-count twice, so I
send a short message
(3) Nala sends adjusted patch.
(4) I notice some other problems this time, and have a hunch for
something that might be wrong on Artanis' side instead and should be
easy to confirm (never received a message about that thing, so here is
some underdiscussion as well) -> message.
(5) Nala ignores the Artanis thing, says something vague about 'mixing
different situations', uses unclear terminology (fulfilment???), makes
leaps about cause->effect things, and makes an impossible claim (if
there is no thread support then you can't have worker threads ...).
(6) Since the reasoning is a bit rigorous and the previous message is
unclear in places, I attempt to reverse-engineer what they might have
meant, by identifying what potential meanings do not agree with the
code, and by searching for the bug myself and after the fact determining
in what ways the bug matches the description by Nala. So, I do that,
and along the way write down the thought process (and afterwards clean
it up a little). Since debugging code and deobfuscating vagueness can be
rather elaborate, naturally it follows that this involves a lot of text.
And since I was unable to use Nala's messages as-is because of their
vagueness, it naturally follows that I attempt to increase the clarity
of own
(7) Now I get complaints about length and you find my behaviour
outrageous???
Mirrors and kettles, people.
