On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 04:05:18PM +0200, Péter Ujfalusi wrote: > It is the topology ops optionality stuff. It is in itself a trivial (for > my eyes) conflict, but it is a conflict never the less. > This is not going to backport cleanly to stable either. > What would be the preferred way to handle this (for next, for 6.2 and > for 6.1.x)? Can you send me a version that applies against for-6.2, if it doesn't backport to stable you can send an explicit backport patch once that becomes an issue. I'm much happier resolving a merge between 6.2 and 6.3 than on initial application.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
