"brian m. carlson" <sand...@crustytoothpaste.net> writes: > Yeah, that behavior is quite old. I'm surprised that Linux ever did > that. > ... > I don't feel strongly either way. I feel confident the rest of Git > doesn't use that field, so I don't see any downsides to keeping it other > than the slight overhead of populating it. I just thought I'd ask in > case there was something important I was missing.
OK, I'd consider that this part of the review settled for taking the patch as-is. Let's mark the topic for merging to 'next' soonish in the what's cooking report. Thanks.
