> Of course. That's not the question (at least IMO). The question > is that when a cosmetic change also results in a functional > change (and we wouldn't be suggesting MMN bumps if it wasn't), > that it becomes a change that should be proposed as a backport > and not willy-nilly added. We have a process, and should > discourage attempts to bypass it on a stable trunk.
This change followed the process. It currently sits in 2.4.x/STATUS.
