Kaartic Sivaraam <kaarticsivaraam91196@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > As has been noted by Junio, > > "It would be a backward incompatible tightening of the established > rule, but it may not be a bad change." > > The "It" above refers to this change. Expecting comments from people to ensure > this change isn't a bad one. FWIW, I am fairly neutral; I do not mind accepting this change if other people are supportive, but I do not miss this patch if we end up not applying it at all. The latter is easier for me as we do not have to worry about breaking people's scripts and tools used in their established workflows at all.
