"brian m. carlson" <sandals@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Alternatively, I certainly wouldn't complain if you did introduce a new >> function and updated the call-site that passes reinit as 1. > > I thought about introducing a new function, but since it would share > almost all of the code, it seemed a bit wasteful, even if the function > is small. We do have only two callers, I believe, since I recall > making this function non-static and calling it from clone, so I think > it's okay. Perhaps. FWIW, this seems to have strange interaction with something in 'seen' when merged; I suspect it is the topic that mucks with the set-up sequence for "git clone", but didn't check.
