Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] t5000: test tar files that overflow ustar headers

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Jul 15, 2016, 15:10 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1607151707180.6426@virtualbox>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq7fcoot6t.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

Hi Junio,

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > Yeah, that is what I was trying to get at, but you stated it much more
> > clearly. LONG_IS_64BIT is good. I wonder if the "git version
> > --build-options" should be "sizeof-long", too. It's shorter, and
> > indicates our assumption that we are talking about all longs, not just
> > unsigned ones.
> 
> OK, I'll do a final reroll and then wait for Europeans ;-)

Don't let me stand in the way of progress.

I would have preferred two separate prereqs, of course, for the same reason we use time_t and off_t: I find it better to describe what the prereq is about, and I do not mean implementation details here.

But that does not matter all that much. We will have to address the issues anyway, and at that point that wart will be removed and we will all go on with our lives.

So what are your plans with 2.9.2? I ask because I do not want to engineer a 2.9.1 release just to see that 2.9.2 is out and having to spend the same amount of time for another release ;-)

Ciao, Dscho