"Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> write: > These are patches I've been carrying locally since April-ish, as a > follow-up to the "ls-tree --format" topic. Cool. > Teng: This conflicts with your topic, but re my suggestion of > submitting a separate clean-up series in [2] maybe you could look this > over, see how they differ from yours, and see what would make sense to > keep/incorporate for such a clean-up series? Yes, I'd like to. > E.g. 1/4 here is the opposite approach of your 3/6[3], but as 3/4 > eventually shows we don't need that struct for anything except that > callback case. Ok, I will check it out later. Thanks.
