Justin Tobler <jltobler@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Thinking about this more, we should probably just require > `index_blob_bulk_checkin()` be provided a transaction. Callers will need > to ensure a transaction is running so that a `struct > bulk_checkin_packfile` gets set up, but this shouldn't be a big deal. Thanks for thinking this through. I think reducing the number of oddball callers-from-sideways leads us to good code hygiene. > With this we could easily just propagate the transaction for all these > function as you suggested. > > I'll do this in the next version. Thanks! > > -Justin
