From 2ba2b37d975c921b3e80811e77579ff93e7af250 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Joey Hess <joeyh@joeyh.name>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 21:40:40 -0400
Subject: comment

---
 .../comment_9_7c87ab0fba0aa90e2b24b457851b63c4._comment | 17 +++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 doc/todo/bytes_in_privData__63__/comment_9_7c87ab0fba0aa90e2b24b457851b63c4._comment

diff --git a/doc/todo/bytes_in_privData__63__/comment_9_7c87ab0fba0aa90e2b24b457851b63c4._comment b/doc/todo/bytes_in_privData__63__/comment_9_7c87ab0fba0aa90e2b24b457851b63c4._comment
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..b904351a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/todo/bytes_in_privData__63__/comment_9_7c87ab0fba0aa90e2b24b457851b63c4._comment
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+[[!comment format=mdwn
+ username="joey"
+ subject="""comment 9"""
+ date="2016-06-17T01:33:05Z"
+ content="""
+Thank you, Andrew!
+
+Before I merge this, I want to clear up something that confuses me;
+you characterized this as a bug that has bit you. How did the
+pre-bytestring File.hasContentProtected exhibit buggy behavior?
+
+AFAICS, it already supported binary privdata, just in a suboptimal
+way.
+
+(Also fileProperty and bytesProperty should indeed be deduped;
+a second patch that merges them, even with an API change, would be ok.)
+"""]]
-- 
cgit v1.3-2-g0d8e