Re: Issue 4936: look up "mf" for default initial volume (issue 308890043 by address@hidden)

[dak]

On 2016/08/12 21:21:33, Dan Eble wrote:
> James put this issue back in "review" thinking that there might be
more than
> needs to be discussed, but my understanding is that none of the
reviewers has
> any significant concern about pushing this as it is.

> Is that correct?

I repeat:

Can we get to some version of the code where the code paths supposed to
be
equivalent (is there agreement about that?) actually looks the same?

If so, this would be a good starter for Heikki to eventually propose a
cleanup
that would result in a removal of the dead code or keeping it but adding
a
programming error.  Something like that.

This sounds like work either party has not bargained on doing.  But it
would
likely be easier to get it done now that people have taken a bit of a
look than
at a time when the person puzzling over it has no indication about why
stuff
looks different.

https://codereview.appspot.com/308890043/