Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > There may be some other (real) reason where the resistance comes > from, that you may not be telling us, though. But in what was > described in the message I am responding to, I didn't see much > convincing reason to argue _for_ keeping the contained objects > ignorant of the container and forcing callers to pass both to > functions that use both the container and contained to compute > something. I am not you, so I can only speculate, but the real reason _could_ be that it makes it simpler to formulate steps 2 and 3 mechanically. After adding "repo" parameter to a function that used to take, say, a "branch", in step 3, a future clean-up series could add a .repo member to branch objects and remove the "repo" parameter from such function. I think that approach would make more work to get to the final state, though.
