Elijah Newren wrote: > As stated elsewhere, I'd be fine with using the archived link if the > justification presented in the series for using archived links was > consistent and mentioned both reasons for changes. But, I think this > series is fine to merge down as-is if you don't want to go through the > trouble. Especially given how long you've waited. I'm clearly still contributing, so I can come back later and cross that bridge... > Anyway, I checked through every link in this series; it all looks good to me. Let's take this as-is. Thanks for taking the time to re-check every link, I know exactly how tedious that is :).
