[ninjin]

“[N]o interest in performance” is probably a bit unfair, no? It makes it sound like any patch that brought solely performance would be rejected. But it is certainly true that they have much less manpower than the “competition” and that performance takes a backseat relative to other priorities.

[saagarjha]

No interest in performance means that, no? If they did what you said and rejected performance patches they’d be actively against performance.

[Gud]

No, it just means it’s not the top priority.

If the performance patches would make the code less secure, they would not implement it.

[loeg]

No, it's fair -- they're actively disinterested in patches that improve performance.