On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 4:54 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > be nice, but if the authors of that assembly are convinced it should be replaced, then this step is optional IMO. I think this actually makes the patchset and maintenance of it a lot more confusing, so I'm going to abort doing this. I'd rather make the convincing argument for the assembly anyway.
