On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 12:20 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 03:17:58PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > As a whole, I find that pretty cool. Not sure if I would backpatch
> > the test, so my opinion would be to use that on HEAD and let it
> > stabilize there.
>
> Thomas, is there anything I can do to help with this patch and make it
> move on?
Give me a couple of days and I'll look into how back-patchable the
tests can be made, and see what else we can test. Perhaps it's not
strictly necessary to back-patch the fix further than 15, but I think
we should definitely consider it, and I don't like the idea of not
having the tests accompanying the change.
If you have any ideas about how to write a more efficient version of
advance_to_record_splitting_zone() (or I guess that should really be
advance_to_record_header_splitting_zone()), and generally how to make
the perl better, and how to get those constants we need from the
source or binaries, then I'm all ears.
