On Fri, May 09, 2026 at 07:35 PM Jarkko Sakkinen <[email protected]> wrote: > This is great observation but it is not a regression technically. > > Thus, this really should just state the issue and don't make it look > like a bug report based on transcript that does not happen in the wild.
Thank you for the feedback, Jarkko. That's a fair point. Since no in-tree caller exercises this path today, framing it as a regression is misleading. I'm happy to rework the commit description to present it as a proactive hardening fix rather than a bug report, and drop the Fixes tag accordingly. > I guess this is better than parameter removal since name caching would > make sense [1] in future. Agreed. Keeeping the name parameter functional makes the API ready for name caching without further changes. Would you prefer I resend with the adjusted description, or would you like to suggest specific wording? Happy to go either way. Gunnar
