7 Aug
2023
7 Aug
'23
5:19 a.m.
I'm probably missing something here, but don't we need 06040d2a3034eafbe839951f77b6a7abda32f7ce as well?
I thought about it, but I'm not sure. On the one hand, it is a regression by the books. On the other, I think it's a little less than perfectly meaningful, since the pre-regression behaviour was a "not implemented" failure, and this new failure is not exactly ill-defined. The fix is also a bit more risky than the others here for a stable release, and it only ends up fixing a test todo anyway.