Re: [PATCH 1/2] Modified flag field type in rev_list_info struct in bisect.h. There is no need for flag field to be signed, as it is not supposed to be used as decimal.

From: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Date: Mar 25, 2016, 16:54 UTC
Message-ID: <CAPig+cRVBMbCikO2aCC0wXXgB4_P+XMNvNQfk+jhPWcZUbLfdQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <56F534D0.7050104@gmail.com>

[please respond inline rather than top-posting]

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 8:53 AM, work <motroniii@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 14 quoted lines

> On 03/25/2016 09:18 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> writes:
>>> Maybe my exposure to the code was accidentally in a way such that
>>> I ever only saw the version without int.
>>
>> The older part of the code tends to spell flag words with "unsigned"
>> without "int", which is primarily historical fault of mine.
>
> Yep. Thanks for your remarks. I have made a bit more research about using
> old rev_list_info struct (with signed int flag) and realized, that it
> doesn't appear in expressions, where using signed integer will differ from
> unsigned one.
> I'll take using 'unsigned' instead of 'unsigned int' in account, so if
> needed, I can remake the patch in order to get it accepted.

If I read Junio's response correctly, "unsigned int" is indeed preferred over "unsigned", so no need to change that part, but the commit message needs improvement, and other reviewer comments should be addressed.

And, yes, the expectation is that you will re-roll the patch (one or more times) in response to issues pointed out by reviewers. As a GSoC applicant, this is especially important since a big part of working on this project is being responsive to review comments, and GSoC mentors will examine your reviewer interaction when selecting applicants.