Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 04:12:40AM +0100, Michael Haggerty wrote: > >> This is a re-roll of an old patch series. v1 [1] got some feedback, >> which I think was all addressed in v2 [2]. But it seems that v2 fell >> on the floor, and I didn't bother following up because it was in the >> same area of code that was undergoing heavy changes due to the >> pluggable reference backend work. Sorry for the long delay before >> getting back to it. > > I've read through the whole thing, and aside from a few very minor nits > (that I am not even sure are worth a re-roll), I didn't see anything > wrong. And the overall goal and approach seem obviously sound. > >> Michael Haggerty (23): > > I'll admit to being daunted by the number of patches, but it was quite a > pleasant and easy read. Thanks. > > -Peff Thanks, both. These patches indeed were pleasant.