Well, in 2.4.26 is WAS/IS an entry in notes available to modules, and since we don't know who/what may not being using or expecting it, and since it's useful info anyway and not a performance hit, it seems "prudent" to me. But I'm fine either way.
> On Jun 30, 2017, at 11:28 AM, Jacob Champion <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 06/30/2017 05:32 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> I still think that the below has value and should not be/have-been >> reverted. > > I'm not arguing that it doesn't have value in theory, but IMO it doesn't > belong in 2.4.x without a client. Right now it's just dead code. > >> Anyone opposed to me re-adding it to trunk and removing it >> from the backport proposal? > > Yes. Unless you have a use case for it at this moment, I'd prefer that it be > re-backported if and when that use case materializes, but I will defer to the > majority here. > > --Jacob
