On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 01:52:18PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > So, this is an alternative approach to tackle the same issue > <xmqq4ko8yxp9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> tried to address. It > ended up to be more involved than I would have liked, but it was > primarily because it needed some function signature changes. This looks like an improvement to me. I left a few minor comments that might be worth addressing, and a few whose resolution is probably "well, we _could_ do that but it's not worth spending more time on this". -Peff
