Re: What's cooking in git.git (Aug 2025, #05; Mon, 11)

> Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> 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.