Repository navigation
Conversation
|
Thank you — the mechanical work here is clean. I verified it against
Could you split this into two PRs? The two halves of #48 have different risk profiles. Delete Hold the copy extraction behind #99. The purpose of That is a scoping problem on our side, not a defect in your patch. Sorry for the extra round-trip. One design note for when the extraction does land: Splitting the sentence into Two smaller ones:
|
|
Follow-up: I split #48, so the two halves now have their own trackers.
If you would rather not carry this further, that is completely fine — say so and we will take it from here. Your branch is retained either way, and both issues point at it. |
|
Thank you for this — the shape is right, and it is what #100 asks for. Two things have moved underneath it since you opened it, and both change what should be in this PR. 1. The
|
|
Closing this as superseded rather than merging the conflicted branch. Thank you again for the clean mechanical work and for preserving the existing rendering. The The useful prior art remains available at |
Summary
Validation
Closes #48