On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 10:39 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> 0002 and 0003 make this stuff fail, but isn't there a risk that this
> breaks applications that relied on these accidental behaviors?
> Assuming that this is OK makes me nervous.
I wouldn't argue for backpatching, for sure, but I guess I saw this as
falling into the same vein as 5b3c5953 and bcc704b52 which were
already committed.
--Jacob