Don't mix "relevance" with "it was the subject".Are you saying that none of the discussion in the thread was at all relevant to your proposed patch?
Like, I get the "too many cooks in the kitchen" situation we had going on once we had 5 or so distinct devs chime in with their individual opinions, but none of it, really?
It is "relevant" to my proposed patch (which was not proposed in this thread), yes, but it was not "mentioned" here.
The statement was that the recent discussion was about what needed to changed in said proposal for it to be accepted. That much is false.
(There was "a patch" uploaded in this thread, but it's use was only to show the proposed organization)
But that's the issue: I did not assert that it was satisfying everyone's concern. That's why I was asking veracity if she still held hers after the previously mentioned arguments.When I say "my proposal" in the above quote, I'm specifically imagining myself in your situation. That is, "the patchset that I, fredg1, provided in this thread, is immune to all of your concerns, and here's why"
It's why I haven't made a proper proposition yet. Because we were still on the topic of "how should choice adventures be organized", and the result of that topic would heavily alter said proposal.