On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 10:17:21AM -0700, Elijah Newren wrote: > > > +Note that for backward compatibility reasons, a value of 0 is treated > > > +the same as if a large value was passed (currently, 32767). > > > > Given the confusion around what "32767" even means to users, I wonder if > > we could just say: a value of 0 removes any artificial limits (but Git > > still has some internal limits which real-world cases are not likely to > > hit). > > 32767 is not an internal limit; and as such, it is absolutely an > artificial limit. I had to use 48941 just a few years ago, and that > value (and others larger than 32767) are fully supported. OK, I thought there was still some 32-bit m*n limits, but I guess not. > > Removing limits is after all the point of "0". I'm also not sure if it > > is simply for backwards compatibility. We commonly let "0" or "-1" mean > > "no limit" for convenience. It seems like something we'd want to > > support. > > Making 0 mean unlimited could be done, and I think it'd be a one-line > change, but that's not what commit 89973554b52c (diffcore-rename: make > diff-tree -l0 mean -l<large>, 2017-11-29) tried to do. > > I'm not opposed to such a change in the meaning of "0", but I am > opposed to documenting this value as unlimited unless we make it so. Thanks for clarifying. It does seem silly that "0" means "big, but kind of arbitrary". But I'm OK to punt on that change for now (and in the meantime, I have no real opinion on whether or how to document the current behavior). -Peff
