Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > I see that this is still with the previous iteration, and therefore > exposes the same speed (or slowness) as was investigated so wonderfully by > Victoria. > > So I really do not understand why you pointed to that run, given that it Simply because your updated version came to my tree a lot after I prepared two trees that are otherwise identical for comparison to write the message you are responding to. If the new round is much improved than the previous one, that is a very good news. I do not appreciate that you have to always talk back to others in such an aggressive tone, and I do not think it is only to me, by the way. You could have said the same thing in a lot more cordial way, e.g. "There is a newer version than those being compared---could you look at this run instead for comparison, even though admittably there probably are changes in other topics in flight so the exact failures may be different?"
