> From: Stéphane Marks <shipmints@gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2025 05:45:59 -0400
> Cc: 78843@debbugs.gnu.org, adam@alphapapa.net, sbaugh@janestreet.com,
>       larsi@gnus.org, arstoffel@gmail.com, krisbalintona@gmail.com
>
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2025 at 5:42 AM Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>  > From: Stéphane Marks <shipmints@gmail.com>
>  > Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2025 05:12:46 -0400
>  > Cc: 78843@debbugs.gnu.org, adam@alphapapa.net, sbaugh@janestreet.com,
>  >       larsi@gnus.org, arstoffel@gmail.com, krisbalintona@gmail.com
>  >
>  > On Sun, Jun 22, 2025 at 4:59 AM Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>  >
>  >  Is it really not feasible to have separate patches for each bugfix and
>  >  each enhancement (or coherent set of enhancements)?  What if we decide
>  >  to install just some of these changes -- you'd need to update the
>  >  entire large patch, instead of dropping a relatively small one and
>  >  leaving the others intact.
>  >
>  > I hope we elect to adopt them all.  It would be much more work to tease them all out piecemeal and
>  wouldn't
>  > really, in the end, produce a better vtable.
>
>  Please also consider the inherent difficulties in reviewing such a
>  large (4K lines!) patch.
>
> Let's start with the vtable users I looped in actually using it.

I don't see how this will help in reviewing the patch. It will allow
those folks to try the patch, but that's a separate job.  Patch review
has to happen regardless, because it might spot issues that no
reasonable amount of testing can.  This is why patch review is a
necessary step in our development process.

> I can attach a vtable.el without the patch file and
> make it easier.

Thanks, but it won't make it easier, no.