Re: [PATCH 2/5] add object-cache infrastructure

Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:

Actually I do not think identifying the ones that can safely skipped is
such a big issue. The case I am most concerned about is when you see that
"two reverted back to one" (which you obviously want to avoid, to keep the
effect of the commit the upstream has to have "two" on that line), but at
the same time ...

It is even worse if you do not necessarily agree with that "two", which
you might originally have written "t w o". You _still_ want to keep the
version from the upstream (i.e. leaving the result as "two") while
replaying the patch that adds "one" (and correcting the change upstream
did to make it "modified one"), and when it is the "t w o" patch's turn,
you would want to do the same dance to make an incremental correction to
the way the upstream butchered your original change.