> On 29 Jun 2017, at 20:34, Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> wrote: > > You seem to have squashed an unrelated "table-driven" clean-up into > this step. While I think the end result looks good, I would have > liked to see it as a separate step, either as a preparatory "now we > are going to add the third one, let's make it table-driven before > doing so" step, or a follow-up "now we have done everything we > wanted to do, let's make this clean-up at the end" step.
I am sorry. That was a misunderstanding - I thought you want to have this change squashed. The "preparatory" patch sounds good! Would you be OK if I send a v9 with this change? Thanks, Lars
