| 21 Aug 2025 |
 K900 | Mangling the comparison JSON went great | 20:12:25 |
 emily | I don't think that was my idea | 20:12:33 |
| emily | but you're welcome | 20:12:34 |
| emily | do you intend to land those [START] commits btw | 20:13:54 |
| K900 | I'm considering it | 20:14:18 |
| K900 | Unless someone screams | 20:14:22 |
| emily | I kinda want to scream | 20:14:26 |
| emily | you could at least do them as separate PRs | 20:14:34 |
| emily | that way they have the right structure in --first-parent | 20:14:40 |
| K900 | I guess technically | 20:14:43 |
| K900 | But I don't know if the intermediate states are actually correct tbh | 20:14:53 |
| K900 | Maybe it should just get squashed | 20:14:59 |
| emily | all of that into one commit? scary | 20:15:12 |
| K900 | It's basically impossible for a bisect to ever land on any of that | 20:15:14 |
| K900 | In a way that's relevant | 20:15:17 |
| K900 | OK I removed the empty commits | 20:22:09 |
| emily | sorry for suppressing your creativity :P | 20:24:36 |
| emily | I don't feel like I can review that thing but I am very excited to KDevelop to be gone on account of my LLVM branch | 20:25:02 |
| K900 | Honestly | 20:25:34 |
| K900 | I have no idea how anyone would actually review that | 20:25:39 |
 Grimmauld (any/all) | nice | 20:25:44 |
| K900 | There's very little to review wrt design | 20:26:11 |
| K900 | And also very little to review wrt implementation | 20:26:17 |
| K900 | It's just A LOT of churn | 20:26:20 |
| emily | maybe I could just merge it | 20:27:25 |
| emily | for a laugh | 20:27:27 |
 patka | I'll laugh with you, and be thankful. Will that help? | 20:29:22 |
| emily | K900: how confident are you in the PR's current state out of 10 | 20:29:59 |
| emily | how the heck did this make one Qt 5 library start building | 20:31:22 |
| K900 | Not breaking eval? 100% | 20:36:22 |
