Simon Ruderich <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 06:46:08PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: >>> I agree. Maybe just stick with the original patch? >> >> OK. Why don't we live with that for now, then. The only advantage of the >> "999" trickery is that it's less likely to come up again. If it doesn't, >> then we're happy. If it does, then we can always switch then. > > I think switching the 4 to 9 (which you already brought up in > this thread) is a good idea. It makes accidental conflicts less > likely (it's rare to use so many file descriptors) and is easy to > implement. Yeah, I like the simplicity of implementation, and I more like the fact that it is simpler to reason about its limitation.
