On Wed, Mar 02 2022, John Cai wrote: > Just wanted to bump this thread. It'd be good to get another ack on these > last set of changes. Hi. Sorry that I didn't look at it earlier. This looks good to me and I think everything that's been brought up has been addressed. I left a nit on 1/3 suggesting a way to make that diff a bit smaller by using a subshell instead of refactoring an existing function. But I think with or without that & a ro-roll this would be good to advance to "next" etc. Thanks!
