On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 07:34:12PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > which still lets you eagerly keep track of the generated pack extensions > > while also protecting against forgetful callers. Obviously we're relying > > on a runtime check which is going to be somewhat weaker. But I think > > I don't think we need that. The renaming loop a few lines below will > happily segfault if anybody forgot to populate it. With a less nice > message, obviously, but if the point is to notice a bug, it will get the > job done. That's reasonable, I think. I'm happy to abandon that suggestion :-). Thanks, Taylor
