Hi Junio, On Mon, 7 Aug 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > > >> The patch obviously makes the code better and self consistent in > >> that "struct delta_index" has src_size as ulong, and this function > >> takes trg_size as ulong, and it was plain wrong for the code to > >> assume that "i", which is uint, can receive it safely. > >> > >> In the longer term we might want to move to size_t or even > >> uintmax_t, as the ulong on a platform may not be long enough in > >> order to express the largest file size the platform can have, but > >> this patch (1) is good even without such a change, and (2) gives a > >> good foundation to build on if we want such a change on top. > >> > >> Thanks. Will queue. > > > > This is sad. There is no "may not be long enough". We already know a > > platform where unsigned long is not long enough, don't we? Why leave this > > patch in this intermediate state? > > This is a good foundation to build on, and I never said no further > update on top of this patch is desired. Look for "(2)" in what you > quoted. So are you saying that starting with v2.14.0, you accept patches into `pu` for which you would previously have required multiple iterations before even considering it for `pu`? Frankly, I am a bit surprised that this obvious change from `unsigned long` to `size_t` is not required in this case before queuing, but if the rules have changed to lower the bar for patch submissions, I am all for it. I always felt that we are wasting contributors' time a little too freely and too deliberately. Ciao, Dscho
