I have never been nice, but I admit I have no better literary device to concisely express my sentiment towards your flawed position, to put it nicely.
I am pro-regulation, where regulation for me is busting monopolies, preventing tragedy of commons, setting necessary quality checks, forbidding forced labor. I am against regulation, when it's chat control, 100% tarrifs on whatever, forbidding working on Friday past 17:00 and completely on Weekends. < Why do I even have to point this out?
There's no nuance remaining in this world, people (the proselytizing nerd types) emotionally attach themselves to sophistry that is the spelled-out economic theories, while completely disregarding common sense. Missing forest for trees.
Here's another ad-hominem (to another poster), cause you guys just cannot argue in good faith: Spoken like a true American who had long-forgotten nuance exists.
Also, could you describe the current code-review process for Tangled in more detail please?
My belief is that code review should happen locally, and the unit of work being reviewed stays independent from unit of work being "submitted". The reviewer should be able - locally or in the WebUI - to specify a change-/revision-set (preferably via jj revset language), or add files to review ad-hoc, or even mark specific lines for review!
And then, assign comments to such a review unit - where changes are all being captured as a first-class object, with all the niceties that may come together, e.g.:
- comments are captured in the jj oplog as if they were code changes
- it's easy to surface (locally or in the WebUI) past code reviews
- it's easy to "untangle" and grasp which particular comment belongs to which code review
- [vague from my side] comment might belong to multiple code reviews, or might not; code review might belong to multiple revsets