is only met by "the git history is not perfectly clean, we won't
evaluate even the concept" or "there was some assistance by AI, so
we are to assume that he never read his code and doesn't understand
it anyway"
I understand the frustration you describe, but let me point out that
in both sentences, the part after the comma is//your interpretation.
You were asked to clean up the git history, and it was suggested to
discuss the general approach not in a merge request (which is usually
used for code review). If I understand you correctly, we both agree
that you sought feedback on the general concept, not an actual
line-for-line code review. And given the large quantity of code, I
can understand that a reviewer asks for some background and
explanations before diving into the actual code.
Not sure which two sentences you mean referring to one single (okay,
very long9 sentence with several commas. Frustration does not get less
if someone perceives things as "interpretation", independently how far
this is true.
I meant the two sentences in quotation marks above.
We all can but interpret what the other person might have meant to say;
but putting that interpretation inside of quotation marks tends to
misrepresent what the other person said.
and pseudo-academic meta discussions like this one, or about if
creating code is allowed to change from how it was the ideology in
the 80s.
Sigh. I second David's request about avoiding the use of hyperbole.
This is your interpretation.
Sigh.
I'm out of this discussion.
Lukas
