To be fair, this part is a bit odd: > “In our effort to scope, we inadvertently ended up deleting the source code instead of just not invoking that code path."

To be fair, this part is a bit odd: > “In our effort to scope, we inadvertently ended up deleting the source code instead of just not invoking that code path." I’m not sure the original blog post announcing the drop of this feature was completely transparent, and similarly I’m not sure that this retraction post is either. There’s too much additional context that points to a slightly different explanation. But at least they back tracked. That’s a win.