On 10.04.2025 12:15, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Hmm, yeah. Instead of last, it would be better to put it in second
> place perhaps, for clarity? That would be the same at the end, but we
> would be slightly more consistent with the past logic regarding the
> ordering. Does that look OK to you?
Yes, from my point of view it looks fine.
Best regards,
Maksim Melnikov