I think these significant changes should be proposed and sit for a while awaiting discussion before being committed, as recommended in the guidelines. Although I see from the dates that this was 'committed' before being 'added' .which is puzzling.

You say "The genera Schizopora and Xylodon were rejected and are not to be used" .
Schizopora and Xylodon are rejected only against Hyphdontia when considered as a single congeneric grouping but are still available when considered separate genera . In my view Hyphodontia is now best treated in a narrow sense, and has phylogenetic support, along with some of the segregate genera. Schizopora remains in competition with Xylodon (and Palifer) and Xylodon wins.

Here is my understanding of the current situation ...
At one time or another these genera have been considered within the context of the large and unwieldy Hyphodontia sensu lato (type species in brackets)...

Hyphodontia (Hyphodontia pallidula)
Kneiffiella (Kneiffiella barba-jovis)
Lyomyces (Lyomyces serus/Xylodon sambuci)
Alutaceodontia (Alutaceodontia alutacea)
Chaetoporellus (Chaetoporellus latitans/Kneiffiella abdita)
Fibrodontia (Fibrodontia gossypina/Hyphodontia gossypina)
Lagarobasidium (Lagarobasidium pruinosum)
Palifer (Palifer verecundus)
Rogersella (Rogersella asperula/Hyphodontia griseliniae)
Schizopora (Schizopora laciniata/paradoxa)
Xylodon (Xylodon quercinus)
Hastodontia (Hastodontia halonata)
Grandinia (Grandinia granulose/H.aspera)

When some of these were erected/resurrected a few years back it was stated that the division was based on morphology and without phylogenetic support. However that has not beeen correct for a while now.

Of these the following generic groups are well supported in various phylogenies.

Kneiffiella (1889) (misspelt by some as Kneifiella), inc. Alutaceodontia (2002), inc. Chaetoporellus? (1944)
Lyomyces (1881), inc. Rogersella (1978)
Lagarobasidium
Hastodontia
Fibrodontia
Hyphodontia sensu stricto
Xylodon (1821), inc. Schizopora (1922), inc. Palifer (1991) , inc. Grandinia (1838)

I think the split process works best when the segregates are distinguished by location and with this group they won't be. They will need doing manually. But I suspect if the observers feel they want to revert, and the segregate genera are available for selection, then they will do it themselves.

I always found it odd that in IndexFungorum we gave a 'nomenclaural status' to names but often without the broader context for that status - in this case 'rejected against ...' would be much more useful than simply 'rejected'. Ditto quoting ICN article numbering, which changes with the code edition. But I see Paul is steadily adding these vitally informative extras, along with typification details.