Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Indeed, to be clear it was just general advice about queue-on-top. > > But to clarify what I was getting at here: If we just came up with the > same diff I'd have assumed Jeff just hadn't need the change in "next", > but since he clearly has I was confused by it being here. > > I.e. it doesn't *seem* like anything in the rest of the series depends > on it, so why have it here at all since the bug is being fixed anyway? I'd imagine that it was there just for the same reason series from some people (yours included) tend to bloat, either over iterations or from day one, by including "this is not necessary for the end goal of this topic at all, but since I noticed it, I am including this fix, which should be obvious enough" unrelated fix. Here is a lesson to be learned.
