On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 11:29:56AM +0200, Sören Tempel wrote:
> Hi Theo,
> 
> I believe you are referring to a different patch. The patch proposed in
> thread [1] did indeed receive feedback and was never refined thereafter.

I have lost track of the history. I think ashe sent a patch with
regress, which broke things. Then somebody based something on it
and sent it without regress coverage.

> However, it seems that the patch proposed in [2], which my email refers
> to and which is "newer", never received any feedback whatsoever.

Maybe because of the above.

> If needed, I can send a non-mangled and rebased version of the patch
> proposed in [2]. However, given that [2] never received any feedback, am
> I unsure how we best proceed here. What would be the best course of
> action?

We need a diff that is tested, has regress coverage and applies to
current. Which one it is, is your choice, but it sounds like you want
[2] + some additions in regress.