Re: [PATCH] Fix delta integer overflows
- Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 16:02:23 -0700
- From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix delta integer overflows
Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> This is not about where the bar is set. It is about expectation....
After having thought about this a bit more, I think in the message I
am responding to I mischaracterised the aspect of a patch that
influences the "expectation". It is much less about who the
contributor is but more about what the patch does.
If the patch in question were from a more experienced contributor
(like you or Peff), my internal reaction would have been "gee, the
submitter should have known better that a more complete fix should
involve a larger integral type, not stopping at matching the largest
type that happens to be used in the interface without updating the
But I still would have said that the patch is an improvement--as it
indeed is; it does not make things worse anywhere and brings in a
more consistency. And I still would have mentioned the same "in the
longer term, we would want to use size_t or uintmax_t here, not just
The only thing I would have done differently if the submission were
by a more experienced contributor is that I probably would have
added "yes this may be an improvement, but I expected you should
know better to at least mention the longer term direction to use
size_t or uintmax_t in the log message, even if you didn't
immediately extend this patch into a more complete series".
That one is a difference of expectation between an occasional
contributor and an experienced one.