Improve discussion of new P/R in 3003

xml/issue3003.xml

@@ -101,8 +101,11 @@ That was removed by issue <iref ref="2921"/>, but issue <iref ref="2976"/>
 argues that there was no good reason to do that. Removing `uses_allocator`
 for `packaged_task` would have made sense (as proposed below for `promise`)
 but 2921 didn't do that (which is why 2976 was needed).
-If we restore that `packaged_task` constructor then we need to fix `reset()`
-as discussed in issue <iref ref="2245"/>.
+We can restore the `packaged_task` constructor that takes an allocator,
+and just not restore the `uses_allocator` specialization that implies
+it should be fully allocator-aware.
+Finally, if we restore that `packaged_task` constructor then we need to
+fix `reset()` as discussed in issue <iref ref="2245"/>.
 </p>
 <p>In summary:
 <ul>