I agree, from a ringside commentary viewpoint; for general chatter on a forum, that’s too much to demand. I think that I’d have preferred a detailed analysis o

I agree, from a ringside commentary viewpoint; for general chatter on a forum, that’s too much to demand. I think that I’d have preferred a detailed analysis of the hundreds of messages for one patch broken up into segments and assigned categories. For example, and this are made up: 15% of messages stemmed from mis-application of Intel/AMD assumptions to Apple Silicon. Because doing so without naming names, in an opinionated manner, would really help make or break their point. It would also provide ground for the “read all 15,000 lines” viewpoint: either one is arguing that the assessment is improperly conducted, in which case you would need to conduct your own and provide that — or one is arguing that the assessed categorizations are not the correct ones to use, which is a separate useful debate that does not require reading all the messages.