Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > https://public-inbox.org/git/20111107080926.GC30486@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > Any idea what happened there? Would it be useful for me to rebase > and revive that series? No idea what happend there. Anyway, I quickly read them over and found nothing questionable, except perhaps the moving of "slash is dropped for the purpose of the remaining rules" in 1/4 were probably not a great idea (IOW, I found that it leaves a stronger impression to the readers to say it upfront in the paragraph), but I do not think it is a show-stopper. Reviving the topic would indeed be a good idea. Thanks.
