Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes: > On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 03:39:40PM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote: > >> As before, the second patch is optional. If it is omitted, it might >> flush out any other bugs like this one in client code. If it is >> included, regressions are less likely, but we won't learn about other >> misuses of the API. I have no strong opinion either way. > > My feeling is still slightly towards "don't include", but I also don't > have a strong opinion.
I am inclined to the "don't include 2/2 and cook 1/2 alone but a bit longer" approach. Thanks, both.
