On Wed, 2024-05-22 at 16:47 -0700, Isaku Yamahata wrote: > > How about we leave option 1 as a separate patch and note it is not > > functionally > > required? Then we can shed it if needed. At the least it can serve as a > > conversation piece in the meantime. > > Ok. We understand the situation correctly. I think it's okay to do nothing for > now with some notes somewhere as record because it doesn't affect much for > usual > case. I meant we include your proposed option 1 as a separate patch in the next series. I'm writing am currently writing a log for the iterator changes, and I'll note it as an issue. And then we include this later in the same series. No?
