On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 07:55:44AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > 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]. > > Yeah, that is much simpler. That way, we do not add more commits in > "git log" that people may find later and mistakenly think that the > project had consensus to encourage the use of unsigned when signed > and narrower integer would do fine, and we won't have to see > misguided false positives from -Wsign-compare. We are better off > without these changes. Okay, will send a new version accordingly. Thanks! Patrick
