On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 11:33:14AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > One thing that gave me pause on ripping out more code is that I have > > some bitmap-related patches on my send-to-upstream list, and I wasn't > > sure if they used any of this code. But I checked against your patches, > > and no, this can all go (which makes sense -- my patches are about using > > .bitmap files in more places, so they build at a higher level). > > > > So your patches look good to me, modulo the declarations that Ramsay > > noticed should be removed, too. > > I'll queue your 1/3 and 4/3 (without 2&3/3) for now and let Derrick > and you handle the removal of unused stuff separately on top, so > that the fix-proper can graduate earlier than the rest. Thanks, that sounds good. 2/3 is sort-of-related in that it has an integer overflow bug like the one in 1/3. But the fact that it is not used at all makes it very low priority. ;) -Peff
