Re: [PATCH] Fix delta integer overflows

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

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 interface".

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 ulong".

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.