On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 7:29 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > (None of this is to say that I disagree with Jason, though -- I'm not > entirely convinced that this makes sense for Zinc. But maybe it can > be done in a way that makes everyone happy.) Zinc indeed will continue to push in the simpler and more minimal direction. Down the line I'm open to trying and benching a few different ways of going about it with dynamic patching -- something that will be pretty easy to experiment with given the lean structure of Zinc -- but for the initial merge I intend to do it the way it is, which is super fast and pretty straightforward to follow. Jason
