In D16092#341098, @seanc wrote:

Thank you for carrying this discussion forward into a separate review, @eadler.

It seems as though this revision doesn't include an element of what you had intended with your original patch. Can you elaborate on the change that you are hoping for? I want to make sure I understand the position that you're advocating for and that I'm hearing your concerns, or that whatever point it is you're trying to make is heard.

Give me a few days. I want to be more thoughtful about how it gets written. I've been home due surgery, the past few days, which led to me having a lot of time, but perhaps not being as thoughtful as I should have been about writing it (or honestly, some other things I've said/done over the last few days).

@eadler :, I understand, and no problem. I think you're hitting on something that would be good to formalize, but I want to make sure that what gets prescribed as a community rule of thumb is accurate and strikes the right balance. I think we'd all collectively take something that's an improvement and incremental over something that is perfect. "Perfect is the enemy of good." :~] Also, if you want to hit me up on Slack or IRC to talk in a higher-bandwidth medium than a review, feel free.

In D16092#341204, @seanc wrote:

@eadler :, I understand, and no problem. I think you're hitting on something that would be good to formalize, but I want to make sure that what gets prescribed as a community rule of thumb is accurate and strikes the right balance. I think we'd all collectively take something that's an improvement and incremental over something that is perfect. "Perfect is the enemy of good." :~] Also, if you want to hit me up on Slack or IRC to talk in a higher-bandwidth medium than a review, feel free.

It'd be good to chat over slack/IRC. That said, my development computer just up-and-died. I need to repair it, and there are several other things in front of that, including medical issues. This is going to take some time :(