Carlo Arenas <carenas@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > yes, my plan was to minimize the impact of this bugfix by doing this > as narrow as possible, but you are correct that if we consider that > ... > I should have mentioned though that a better fix was forthcoming, just > not with so little time before 2.34.1 gets released. > ... >> In any case, I am quite tempted to just revert the offending topic >> for now, but later accept a resurrection patch with this isatty >> check rolled in (either at this caller, or inside save_term) when >> the dust settles. > > I indeed suggested[1] a revert but I wouldn't have proposed this > alternative if it wouldn't be done safely enough, I think the minimum impact fix is to revert the whole thing (people survived without it for long time), so that is what 2.34.1 will hopefully have. As I said elsewhere, I am open to a rebooted effort for the future cycles, but the conclusion for the topic in 2.34 series is that we pretend we never heard about it ;-) Thanks.
