Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > It was mostly meant as a proof-of-concept to see where the time was > going, and what was possible. It _could_ be used as a stop-gap while > improving the general performance, but it's gross enough that it's > probably not a good idea (it's increased maintenance, but also it > dis-incentivizes fixing the real problems). Thanks. I have to agree with the assessment.
