In all honestly (nothing against the work itself and the reviews involved, which is always appreciated and welcome), the PR-handling was done in a very unstructured manner.
I think it would be a good idea to look at Thoughts on code review again and come to a consensus. Because it feels like that topic was made to prevent exactly cases like this…
The reviews instantly dove into the details (nitpicks even). Which is far from optimal at that stage, imo. The PR itself didn’t contain any information other than that it fixes something, so then the first step would be to verify whether the proposed approach actually fixes that, right. But that kind of information was lacking in the PR-content, so to actually be able to review it - a request for a proper structured PR would be in place(?). Then you get at least a bit more insight in the thought behind it.
Then the use of it is rather confusing. Clicking on some entry in the folder-pane to end up in the general tab of a device-specific dialog. I mean…that’s not at all intuitive nor is it very useful to change the share-settings of a specific folder there? (even though it can be changed there too, I don’t think it’s a very common practise for general users).