[biorach]

> Yes, please then find those for now imaginative issues and drill through them?

No, that is a massive amount of work which will only establish what we already know with a high degree of certainty due to the red flags already mentored - that this code is too flawed to begin with.

This is not political, this is looking out for warming signs in order to avoid wasting time. At this stage the burden of proof is on the submitter, not the reviewers

[menaerus]

Too flawed? Did you miss that tiny detail that MR fixes a long time issue for ocaml? This is exactly political because there's no legal or technical issue. Only fluff by scared developers. I have no stakes in this but I'm sincerely surprised by the amount of unreasonable and unsubstantiated claims and explanations given in this thread and MR

[zeratax]

I don't get why you do not understand why nobody wants to waste time on a MR where the author didn't even themselves have any interest on looking over it even once. https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/pull/14369/files#diff-bc37d03... also all the unused functions...

did it fix a long time issue? maybe, but 9 tests for 13k lines doesnt give much confidence in that

and even if it worked perfectly, who will maintain this?