Antoine du Hamel

Benchmark CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/view/Node.js%20benchmark/job/benchmark-node-micro-benchmarks/1729/console Cross-platform benchmark: https://github.com/aduh95/node/actions/runs/17515746884/job/49757490320 Shows no significant perf change ``` confidence improvement accuracy (*) (**) (***) misc/arguments.js n=1000000 method='argumentsAndApply' -0.03 % ±4.78% ±6.30% ±8.08% misc/arguments.js n=1000000 method='predefined' 0.23...

I don't think this is worth it, it feels like it's going to be very noisy for little value IMO, and the hard coded version in the `npx` calls are...

> the website will start displaying misleading info The website can (should) generate its own SVG, there's no reason to use the one in this repo

My feedback from three months ago still stands. I would add that it's unrealistic IMO to assume the automatic PRs would get reviewed, approved, and merged in a timely manner...

I would suggest instead: ```markdown Notable change This PR does this and that. ``` That way, GH will interpret the markdown as such, making it more likely to spot formatting...

Related test failure: ```` === release test-url-parse-invalid-input === Path: parallel/test-url-parse-invalid-input Error: --- stderr --- (node:174506) [DEP0169] DeprecationWarning: `url.parse()` behavior is not standardized and prone to errors that have security implications....

It looks like there are linter and test failures, could you please reabase and address those?

> Now I'm curious: how did you do it? I rebased using the GH "Update branch" API – I initially tried pushing your branch using git, and saw the same...

Landed in 410174c3c4a3e39ce0f880f610a6cc3c07218151

This shouldn't land without https://github.com/nodejs/node-core-utils/pull/1006