As I explained, I and everyone include you, should read a shorter review to save time, if and only if you have the ability to make it shorter.
You refuse to prove that you have that ability. And I refuse to read. Don't waste my time anymore. Your review is done, let's wait for others opiniona. Thanks for typing so many characters. Best regards. On Thu, Aug 21, 2025, 02:18 Maxime Devos <maximede...@telenet.be> wrote: > On 8/20/2025 6:13 PM, Nala Ginrut wrote: > > > Thanks Felix for support! > > Here I give my explicit feedback to avoid you lose any credit when you > > tried to clearly speak out your first feeling. > > Yes, I feel something not good as well. It's not what should be > > expected after sending a patch. > You should actually read reviews, yes, especially when they have lots of > information (which correlates with length -- length isn't sufficient, > but it is related), and not put people down for not summarizing it for you. > > I think we need to stick to the code itself. > > And the code is simple enough to understand to everyone. > > > > And the code is tested to work in the described environment. > > > > That means I have finished my part. > > No, this doesn't follow. It should preferably work in other environments > as well, especially if a method provided for that. Mediocrity is not > some virtue. > > If you decide that things are good enough for you as-is, that's fine, > but then just do so cleanly, don't push for applying it as-is and don't > put down others for providing information and adjustment. > > You can _decide_ for yourself that you've finished and stop responding > (besides a simple courtesy note to indicate no further responses), but > that's a matter of deciding things for yourself, not a matter of > deciding what happens to the patch, and doesn't make your proposals > immune to comments. > > > BTW, usually, the expected code review should be accurately hit what's > > critical in clear-cut language, nothing less nothing more. This is > > what called high quality review. > > Then don't ignore such reviews. > > It is quite interesting that after someone thoroughly goes through the > code and explains what's happening precisely, then someone else claims > that 'we need to stick to the code itself' as if that isn't exactly what > is happening, and then refuses to read that explanation about the code. > Or that someone claims 'it is tested to work -> finished' even after > someone pointed out how it doesn't work and how it can be easily improved. > > I had hoped it was time to remove you from the spam filter but > apparently not. > > Best regards, > Maxime Devos > >
