Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes: > The question of course is whether these tools require the path-walk API, > or whether they could be built on top of existing functionality. But if > there are good reasons why the existing functionality is insufficient > then I'd be all for having the path-walk API, even if it doesn't help us > with repo size reductions as we initially thought. Is the implied statement that we didn't quite see sufficient rationale to convince ourselves that a new path-walk machinery is needed? Thanks.
