On 2021-04-20 at 13:52:33, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> This has a textual conflict (no longer a semantic one) with the above
> ab/unexpected-object-type etc.
> 
> As noted in
> https://lore.kernel.org/git/87mttx121j.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com/ I had
> questions about the approach in hash-object.c, in particular I have
> POC/WIP patches that make one of brian's TODO tests pass, by doing the
> "we are in SHA256 mode" earlier, which is also less code as we won't
> need to add special handling to a large part of hash-object.c (or, in
> the future, other such commands).

I'm going to drop those first two patches for now, since I plan to
implement them in a different way in the future.
-- 
brian m. carlson (he/him or they/them)
Houston, Texas, US