On 8/22/23 23:54, Jan Beulich wrote: > But that's not the only change that was requested back then. There was > one aspect Andrew didn't like, so leaving that part as is would be > fine. But for the items he didn't further respond to, I'd expect a > re-submission to take care of them.
Somehow I assumed that Andrew's branch had already contained the relevant updates, which was clearly wrong and was a sloppy thinking on my part. Also, rushing to submission didn't _really_ help. Again, apologies for wasting your time. -- Sincerely, Jinoh Kang
