On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 02:32:28PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > But I'm not sure the rewritten version does what you claim, at least in > > my own personal opinion. > > > > It is not helpful to say the original approach "saw a lot of backlash". > > It is the nicest thing I can say about it. I don't think you have to or should refer to the earlier round of review at all. > > It is helpful, on the other hand, to say what about the original > > approach gave reviewers pause, and why that alternative approach isn't > > pursued here. > > > > Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but I really do stand by my original > > suggestion from back in [1]. > > We can also keep hitting a dead horse, but I don't think that will make > anything any better. Instead, it would be much more helpful to explain what you tried before, and why you are taking a different approach now. I am simply not comfortable with taking the patch with the way the body is currently written. Thanks, Taylor
