"great" for whom? I've seen enough of the industry to immediately feel suspicious when someone uses that sort of phrasing in an attempt to persuade me. It's no different from claiming a "better experience" or similar.
I don't know how you can be missing the essence of the problem here or that comments point.
Vague claims are meaningless and valueless and are now even worse than that, they are a red flag.
Please don't tell me that you would accept a pr that didn't explain what it did, and why it did it, and how it did it, with code that actually matched up with the claim, and was all actually something you wanted or agreed was a good change to your project.
Updating to the next version of a library is completely unrelated. When you update a library, you don't know what all the changes were to the library, _but the librarys maintainers do_, and you essentially trust that librarys maintainers to be doing their job not accepting random patches that might do anything.
Updating a dependency and trusting a project to be sane is entirely a different prospect from accepting a pr and just trusting that the submitter only did things that are both well intentioned and well executed.
If you don't get this then I for sure will not be using or trusting your library.
don't miss out on the quality code, like the line that has: i += 4 - 2;
https://git.tukaani.org/?p=xz.git;a=commitdiff;h=50255feeaab...
I have dreamed about an automated LLM system that can "diff" the changes out of the binary and provide some insight. You know give back a tiny bit of power to the user. I'll keep dreaming.
> We tuned up the engine and gave the interiors a thorough clean. Everything is now running smoothly again.
Yeah nah mate, if every release is the first release where everything is running smoothly, I'm not going to believe it this time either.
Makes me wonder if the team has some release quota to fill and will push a build even if nothing meaningful has actually changed.
