Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] add kconfirm

[Julian Braha]

On 9/4/26 23:05, Nathan Chancellor wrote:

> My apologies for not getting to this sooner, I have been busy with some
> other projects. I will try to play around with this from a usability
> perspective (which is what I am most concerned with at this point). If a
> v5 is mostly prepared, I would not mind seeing it even if we want to go
> the in-tree interpreter checks. One option is to take kconfirm into the
> tree, fix up the warnings it generates, then moving the checks into the
> interpreter directly while dropping them from kconfirm (since the tree
> should be clean at that point). I am open to opinions on that though.
> 

Your strategy makes sense to me. I'll send v5 then, but I'd also like to
make sure that Nicolas is onboard with this idea.

- Julian Braha