On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 09:06:33AM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > Fair. I don't want to spend too much time on this signedness topic, > either. So I'd go with either: > > - Taking the signedness patches as-is. They don't regress the status > quo and allow us to warn about future unintentional signedness bugs, > even though the fixes are mostly of theoretical value. > > - I drop the signedness-conversion patches altogether. > > The more important part for me is to get the second half of patches > merged anyway. So while I think that the first half of patches are nice > to have, I can live with dropping them. I'd personally lean towards the latter, and drop those patches for now. I think practically speaking that equates to taking patches in the range [5, 10]. To be clear, I am not opposed to the signedness changes entirely, but I do think that they merit a little more discussion and thought around what our general practices should be here. If you want to resurrect those as a separate topic later on, I'd be happy to discuss them then. Thanks, Taylor
