Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes: > On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 05:29:01PM -0700, Jonathan Tan wrote: > >> At this point I decided that I prefer the thin wrapper, but the "light >> touch" (struct oidmap_entry, oidcmpfn(), oidmap_get() only) still >> better than the status quo. > > OK. I can certainly live with that. And worst case, I suppose, is that a > caller wants some underlying hashmap function and we just have to extend > the oidmap API to include it. It's not like we're adding new hashmap > functions willy-nilly.
OK, I think I can live with that, too. I'll tentatively mark the topic to be merged to 'next' but give it for a few days so that others can stop me. Thanks.
