Took Wesley's advice: removed "Maybe that is an okay state of affairs ...".

It wasn't adding anything beyond saying that the status quo might be acceptable,
which is already implied by the later text.

Author: pnkfelix

posts/2022-09-15-const-eval-safety-rule-revision.md

@@ -225,14 +225,7 @@ strived to mitigate such breakage *whenever feasible*, via things like
 
 Today, with our current const-eval architecture layered atop Miri, it is not
 feasible to ensure that changes such as the [one that injected][PR #97684] issue
-[#99923][] go through a future-incompat warning cycle. Maybe that is an okay
-state of affairs; it is hard to tell if we will encounter other cases similar to
-this in the future as Miri and const-eval continue to evolve.
-
-[PR #97684]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/97684
-
-[stability post]: https://blog.rust-lang.org/2014/10/30/Stability.html
-
+[#99923][] go through a future-incompat warning cycle.
 The compiler team plans to keep our eye on issues in this space. If we see
 evidence that these kinds of changes do cause breakage to a non-trivial number
 of crates, then we will investigate further how we might smooth the transition
@@ -241,6 +234,12 @@ against the fact that Miri has very a limited set of developers: the researchers
 determining how to define the semantics of unsafe languages like Rust. We do not
 want to slow their work down!
 
+
+[PR #97684]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/97684
+
+[stability post]: https://blog.rust-lang.org/2014/10/30/Stability.html
+
+
 ## What you can do for safety's sake
 
 If you observe the `could not evaluate static initializer` message on your crate