On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 6:38 AM Shuvam Pandey <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Well firstly I would note that the original behaviour isn't a bug. James, thank you for the prompt reply! > So I agree this should not go forward as a bug fix in its current form. > I'll drop this patch here and revisit it only if I can come back with a > better understanding of the intended semantics. Shuvam, perhaps we need to add a few more test cases first to understand current behaviour better? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
