Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > ... > It's not hurting anything functionally, but it makes the code slightly > more confusing to read. Thanks for all these good suggestions. As you pointed out, the first two seems to be identical to what Taylor queued in 'next' already (so they do not have to be re-sent but it is not a huge deal if they did---it would be a huge deal if they were rewritten, though), and both of the two follow-on patches make sense with suggested (minor) updates. I'll expect a reroll before queuing these two and mark the topic in 'next' to be waiting for them. Thanks, both.
