Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> On hold. >> cf. <CABPp-BFckuONYcGGkCY3BuPypRULmhsk_OFHyYA2E4jM66BfeQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Is the "on hold" comment still accurate? Not anymore. Back when I wrote it it was unclear to me what the best way forward was (e.g. should one become dependent on the other topic? is it something I can carry a semantic conflict resolution for, in order to keep the option open to be able to merge one without the other topic?). Now the answer is in 'pu' and after seeing the "Has this been resolved itself?" from Dscho, I checked the semantic conflict resolution I have can be used when the topics are merged to 'next' or 'master' by making trial merges, so I think we are in good shape. I think these two topics by themselves were both good enough to be in 'next' for wider testing, as I do not recall any remaning issues in the code or docs in the patches (please correct me if it is not the case). Thanks.
