Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > It does make me wonder if anybody uses a negative value like this in the > wild for "no limit", as it does what you might imagine currently (I get > 2^64-1). I vaguely recall complaints on the command line argument that used to take -1 to mean "practically unlimited" when its parsing got tightened. I wouldn't be surprised if we are making a new issue in the same category in the configuration file with this change. But we can switch to the signed variant when it becomes an issue, I guess.
