Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > I think I'd agree on it being a release blocker. Given that your fix is > really a one-liner (3 of the lines are just changing the variable name, > which I agree with), I'd be fine with applying it on top rather than > reverting the original, even if it means delaying the release slightly. > It seems like about the same amount of risk to me. Yeah, I would say we should just apply the rfc/patch as-is directly on 'master'. Thanks.
