4 ms·
“[N]o interest in performance” is probably a bit unfair, no? It makes it sound like any patch that brought solely performance would be rejected. But it is certa
by ninjin 3y ago
“[N]o interest in performance” is probably a bit unfair, no? It makes it sound like any patch that brought solely performance would be rejected. But it is certainly true that they have much less manpower than the “competition” and that performance takes a backseat relative to other priorities.
- saagarjha 3y agoNo interest in performance means that, no? If they did what you said and rejected performance patches they’d be actively against performance.
- Gud 3y agoNo, it just means it’s not the top priority. If the performance patches would make the code less secure, they would not implement it.
- loeg 3y agoNo, it's fair -- they're actively disinterested in patches that improve performance.