Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Johannes Schindelin > <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi Christoph, >> >> On Fri, 11 Aug 2017, Dr.-Ing. Christoph Cullmann wrote: >> >>> on Windows 64-bit, for a repository having a .pack file > 4GB I get >>> during cloning: >> >> The reason is Git's source code that over-uses the `unsigned long` >> datatype. >> >> In a nearby-thread, an underappreciated effort by Martin Koegler is >> underway to get the ball rolling in getting it fixed. Maybe you can help >> making Martin a lot more welcome on the Git mailing list, and maybe even >> help getting his patches reviewed and integrated? > > 'nearby' as in [1] ;-) > > [1] https://public-inbox.org/git/1502527643-21944-1-git-send-email-martin@mail.zuhause/ > > I had the impression the review is going well there? I do not know if it is "going well", but I do not agree with the "underappreciated" bit at all. I find such a blanket statement toxic and detrimental to the community. It is true that many topics in flight are broken with a tree-wide change that is presented as a single ball of wax. Unlike the ongoing "struct object_id" effort, which also is tree-wide but tries to find a step-wise refinement to reduce its impact on other topics, it is harder to integrate such a change. But that does not have any relation to how much the effort is appreciated.
