Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes: > I don't know if that makes things any easier. I feel funny saying "no, > no, mine preempts yours because it is more maint-worthy", but I think > that order does make sense. > > I think it would be OK to put Brandon's on maint, too, though. It is a > refactor of an existing security feature to make it more featureful, but > the way it is implemented could not cause security regressions unless > you use the new feature (IOW, we still respect the whitelist environment > exactly as before).
I think I merged yours and then Brandon's on jch/pu branches in that order, and the conflict resolution should look OK. I however forked yours on v2.11.0-rc1, which would need to be rebased to one of the earlier maintenance tracks, before we can merge it to 'next'.
