4 ms·

Asking people to rebuild things isn't at all realistic. Now any user at any moment can get useful information.

• bravetraveler 4y ago
  I don't think it's completely untenable, though I do understand why it wouldn't be preferred. The people served by this change to the defaults are in the minority. I don't buy that a developer that would gift the community with sufficient performance fixes derived from these... wouldn't manage with what's already available. I think either making the processes to rebuild easier/more well known, less costly (time), or transparent (hello, package groups) is more appropriate, personally. I'm not saying it's right, but that's how I sit with this. I want to do better to avoid prescribing the solution. We can do better than paying the cost of profiling constantly. This information is useful to some users sometimes, but may have completely varying impact on performance forever if made the default.
  • TingPing 4y ago
    This change benefits the developers and testers of the platform, with the hope they improve the software in the future. Requiring rebuilding no matter how easy would completely remove all non-dev testers and demotivate the majority of developers.
    • bravetraveler 4y ago
      I understand that angle, and I think edited this point in above before you saw it here... > I don't buy that a developer that would gift the community with sufficient performance fixes derived from these... wouldn't manage with what's already available. I don't think there's much productive to be had at this point, simply a difference in beliefs and theory-crafting I'm particularly 'jaded' about this (negatively hopeful), because they can likely start with a penalty edit: 'We' should do better to provide profiling, but I don't think it's a worthwhile default given the open-ended expense.