Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes: > I haven't looked at the use of keydata in patch-ids.c and friends to > decide if that "abuse" claim is correct; if it were the case, should > we expect that a follow-up patch to clean up the existing mess by > using the new mechanism? Or does fixing the "abuse" take another > mechanism that is different from this one?
I see that you corrected patch-ids.c "while at it". That may make it harder to revert only that "while at it", I suspect. Thanks.
