Josh Soref <jsoref@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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 :). Thanks, both. Will queue.
