> > Given all that, I'd say the most important thing to apply in cases like this
> > is common sense.
> Common sense in this case would be to learn the rules by which the whatsnew creation
> script operates, and work within them. Not to expect an already-time-strapped
> individual to go by hand through potentially hundreds of commits to appease one
> external contributor who refuses to march in step with the rest of us, Mr. Snowflake.
> Edit: And really, "Someone should have marked it as non-working"? I agree, someone
> should have marked it non-working. Perhaps the person who submitted the pull request?
I specified that it was promoted to working with the submission
it appeared under the initial list of things that were promoted from not working in the generated whatsnew.
vas deleted it from that list under the technicality that it was never marked as non-working, only 'unemulated' protection.
so please, do one.