Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [off-list ref] writes:

Indeed, to be clear it was just general advice about queue-on-top.

But to clarify what I was getting at here: If we just came up with the
same diff I'd have assumed Jeff just hadn't need the change in "next",
but since he clearly has I was confused by it being here.

I.e. it doesn't *seem* like anything in the rest of the series depends
on it, so why have it here at all since the bug is being fixed anyway?

I'd imagine that it was there just for the same reason series from
some people (yours included) tend to bloat, either over iterations
or from day one, by including "this is not necessary for the end
goal of this topic at all, but since I noticed it, I am including
this fix, which should be obvious enough" unrelated fix.

Here is a lesson to be learned.