On Sat, 26 Apr 2025 07:28:03 GMT, Shaojin Wen <s...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> I hope the discussion can return to this PR and discuss specific technical > points instead of philosophy. Discussing technical points about code in this PR seems premature at this point. Reviewers have raised concerns about the larger picture of usefulness vs. cost of this change and also about the even larger picture which is your stream of similar optimization PRs. I think you need to address those concerns before trying to push this PR forward via more code changes. > The changes in this PR are actually not many, and the logic has not changed That's your claim and could would well be true. But reviewers will still need to verify this independently, they cannot just take your word for it. If that was the case, why would we need a review process at all? The cost of reviewing this PR is still significant. I think you should either just withdraw this PR or engage in meaningful communication where you socialize the problem and your solution first. Only when you get a consensus that the problem is worth pursuing should work on this PR continue. > This PR has added a testcase. The concerns raised seems more related to to process, socialization and communication. Responding to that by adding a test case seems counterproductive. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24864#issuecomment-2831956561
