On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 10:52:19PM +0200, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote: > Le torstaina 9. marraskuuta 2023, 22.45.35 EET Alexander Strasser a écrit : > > I can't see how the reason for the presence of code can be ultimately > > defined objectively and non-arbitrary. > > Ultimately, this was discussed and decided in a meeting, which Michael > attended (albeit remotely) and for which meeting notes were published. maybe i misremember as i was a bit sick that day but there are 2 pieces of code there was the "fast mode code" that i thought was discussed this is disabled by default and we aggreed to remove it the change here is about the default code path so this is very different it will affect users with default options. I do not remember this was discussed but its quite possible people had a different interpretation what the words meant that where said. This definitly should be tested before its applied. Whoever the burden falls on is not my argument but ATM i have many things to do so i will not be able to test this in the next days > > That being the case, I don't see why Andreas should have to perform extensive > testing and write extensive justification. He could have done and that would > have been nice, but that is all. I never meant that there should be extensive testing but teh removal of a optimization from the default codepath should be tested. Also about spec non compliance, if this was so bad, being in the default path there would be bug reports so iam a bit sceptic. not saying it shouldnt be removed just saying we should look before removing it thx [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB I have often repented speaking, but never of holding my tongue. -- Xenocrates