I’ve edited a bit, and left comments.
The phrasing is now way too negative - are you trying to get the paper rejected?
@carette I’ve tried to address the comments you left, and welcome additional comments from everyone. I’d like to make “our repository contains many more” more parallel to “exact inference and collapsed Gibbs sampling” and more concrete — would you please be more specific? Also, are you trying to get me to cooperate with you less?
I like the new paragraph - it no longer seems to focus on the things we don’t do, but rather on what we do do, and contextualizes it.
I apologize if I was overly curt; I have a ridiculous pile of things to do in a very short amount of time, and that has spilled over into my communication.
I don’t think we need to mention our repo at all; that was an attempt on my part to say “and we do more”. I’m fine with the alternate way you have of doing that.