Anthony Juckel

> Quick update, we've been discussing this PR in our calls regularly, trying to come up with a good fix without breaking the newer diagrams. We'll share a detailed approach...

@sidharthv96 For immediate next step, I'll prune this PR back to only affect flowcharts and fix the issues you referenced. I expect I could have that done by end of...

> Which all diagrams are blockers for you? This is somewhat difficult to answer. There's the main set of diagrams that I verified between version 10 and 11. This set...

@sidharthv96 I'm a bit confused now. This seems very similar to the suggestion I made above (point 2 about degrading to plain text rather than rendering the error), which I...

@sidharthv96 No worries, I'm just trying to make sure I understand the intent. To me, what makes the most sense is to change nodes `a` and `b` to use explicit...

For compatibility reasons, I'd argue for sticking tracking the underlying Jakarta EE compat. I can't find a quick compatibility matrix online to reference, but I'm pretty sure that means: -...

@headius For your "large jruby-rack user that still has to support Java 8 for some time", are they large enough to warrant an attempt at creating a separate Java 8/Jakarta...

I did some more poking locally, and am caught up with what @chadlwilson was saying. Even if I lower the packages to their EE 9 variants and update the main...