On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> wrote: > Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> 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.
Yes it was a last minute squash before sending it out, as the fix was only two lines whereas the conversion is a lot. If it were separated I could have claimed the introduction to be a rather mechanical patch, but I did not make use of coccinelle or such, so the likelihood for errors is just as high. So I decided to squash them. Thanks, Stefan
