Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > Thanks. With the earlier bug fix and this documentation change, I'm OK > with keeping the merge-backend transition in v2.26.0. This change > _might_ cause problems in somebody's script, but that will be true > whether it comes in 2.26 or 2.27, and I think it's clear this is the end > state we want to get to eventually. I am OK either way, so let's take these two, plus the "don't i18n the literals that must be given as option values" patch from Jiang, and discard the "let's delay the inevitable to buy some time" patch. I merged the last one locally to 'next' already but I haven't pushed the result out, so it is still possible to back out ;-)
