Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I am worried that the project is not learning from what happened here. > ... > Fair enough, though that feels like overengineering. But I *still* > don't see what that has to do with the name "no-optional-locks". When > is a lock *optional*? And how am I supposed to discover this option? > > This also came up during review, and I am worried that this review > feedback is being ignored. In other words, I have no reason to > believe it won't happen again. I too would like to see this part explained a bit better.
