Re: RFC: code optimizations

On 2023/03/06 00:43, Juris Evertovskis <juris@glaive.pro> wrote: > The current amount of secondary votes makes it feel daunting. I would > suspect not all voters will think thoroughly about each of the questions. > I suggest that most of these questions could be agreed upon in discussions > before the vote. Casting a vote seems like the canonical way to get a decision, but I agree that the number of secondary votes makes this RFC somewhat unwieldy, that was my thought as well. If the discussion leads to an agreement, of course I'm open to removing affected secondary votes. For now, let's consider the list of secondary votes like a discussion agenda. > Maybe the RFC could propose a certain wording of the guidelines? The > community could then agree on most details via a discussion. Yes, that should certainly be amended, but I did not yet suggest a wording, because that would be the result of the pre-vote discussion. I'm not even sure if this RFC isn't ill-advised - it is based on my (undisputed) understanding that code optimizations are not covered by what is allowed to be done without a RFC (after somebody pointed out that merging my work violated community guidelines), yet every day other people's code optimizations are accepted. Not just that - at least once, after my work was reverted, somebody else resubmitted the exact same change and it got accepted. I'm confused, and I seek clarification. Max