Re: [PATCH] Fix futures, %worker-count shouldn't be zero to prevent halting

On 8/20/2025 1:45 PM, Nala Ginrut wrote:
> Please don't make the simple patch too complex to discuss.
> Our current policy is to accept patch in a simple process. And we 
> don't want newbies found it's too hard to be reviewed in a just one 
> line patch.
>
> Could you please elaborate on your point in shorter description?
>
> Best regards.

(0) there is, currently, no Guile 'policy'. Things are a matter of 
general ethics, morality, generic goodness/badness, general software 
development recommendations, personal opinion ...  Simple process is 
good but that's not 'policy'. You're presenting things as more official 
than they are.

(1) I'm not making it complex.

(2) I'm not making it hard to review. Shortness is not easiness. 
Shortness can be vagueness. People need clear information to act upon, 
and this clarity can take time/length. Writing _clear_ text can take a 
lot of space and time. Shortening it while preserving clarity can reduce 
space, but also increases time -- often, long text takes less time than 
short text! (can hurry it up, but then it gets vague) And reading takes 
much less time than writing. So, unless there are many actors involved, 
or a high time imbalance between the small number of actors, shortening 
makes no sense.

(3) I structured the text such that you can skip over individual parts 
if you get the message early, and within the text I already provided 
some summaries.

(4) do consider looking at the metaphorical mirror when writing such 
things ... you were rather vague in your descriptions about what the bug 
is, which makes things complex to review. And you ignore relevant 
questions, and refuse to read carefully written detailed responses --> 
complex review.  Review does not only cost time/effort for the patch 
submitter, but also for the reviewer.

(5) it's not just a 'one line patch'. Its a multiple-line patch 
(documentation changes!), that changes semantics (things being done in 
another thread can be unexpected), that doesn't work in all cases (no 
thread support), does not identify the cause (see the mail you refuse to 
read), is vague about what the bug is.

(6) I dissected the bug for (generic)you to find its likely cause, and a 
proper fix, to make the cause and proper fix explicit. That's like the 
opposite of making it complex or hard for newbies.

TLDR(to long didn't read) I refuse, just read the text. It isn't policy 
to be disrespectful, and disrespectfulness is bad.