On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 10:38:31PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 11:28:14AM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > > Curiously, the reference of the message points at the cover letter > of this series, and there is no mention of a message from early last > December. I think that is the author-date generated by format-patch, since that's when I originally wrote it. I generally format the messages into an mbox, load that in mutt, and then use mutt's "bounce" feature to send them, which rewrites the date header. In this case, though, I somehow accidentally hit "reply" (more astounding is that I didn't notice it as I was sending; I think I might be getting senile). > I think this is good. These "conflict IDs" are not even object > names, so it would be strange to use "struct object_id" for them > (for that matter, packfile ids are not object names, either, but I > suspect we might use object_id there). I suspected that, too, but when I checked I couldn't find any instance where we do. I might not have looked hard enough, or perhaps whoever converted the pack code had better taste than me (see the similar use of object_id in the previous patch). > If there were a patch that can readily applied ;-) Yep, see my reply. :) -Peff
