Re: Windows 64 port

[Paul Eggert]

>> My primary objection to the change has always been maintainability
>> and cleanness; any extra instructions are in the noise.
> Then why did you bring up that argument in the first place?

Because it seemed like a valid argument.  It was only one
line in my twenty-line email, and that was the fourth email
I sent about that particular change, and all these emails
focused on my main concern, which was keeping the Windows
64 changes simple and maintainable.  Unfortunately these
concerns didn't seem to be persuading you, so naturally I
cast about for other arguments.  But performance was never
my main point, and still isn't.

Since then, Fabrice and I seem to have come to a consensus
that much of the mainline part of the patch isn't needed for
Windows 64 and can be considered separately, so there's no
real technical controversy here.

> The way I see it, Fabrice is trying
> to contribute, and you discourage him on false pretenses.

A good way to react to a critical and honest code review is
to thank the reviewer, make changes that seem warranted,
and move on, which is what Fabrice is doing.  This is
standard practice in software engineering.  Unsupported and
incorrect accusations of bad faith are not helpful in this
process, as they tend to discourage people from reviewing
and thereby improving the code.