Re: [PATCH] Fix delta integer overflows

[Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>]

Hi Junio,

On Mon, 7 Aug 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> >> The patch obviously makes the code better and self consistent in
> >> that "struct delta_index" has src_size as ulong, and this function
> >> takes trg_size as ulong, and it was plain wrong for the code to
> >> assume that "i", which is uint, can receive it safely.
> >> 
> >> In the longer term we might want to move to size_t or even
> >> uintmax_t, as the ulong on a platform may not be long enough in
> >> order to express the largest file size the platform can have, but
> >> this patch (1) is good even without such a change, and (2) gives a
> >> good foundation to build on if we want such a change on top.
> >> 
> >> Thanks.  Will queue.
> >
> > This is sad. There is no "may not be long enough". We already know a
> > platform where unsigned long is not long enough, don't we? Why leave this
> > patch in this intermediate state?
> 
> This is a good foundation to build on, and I never said no further
> update on top of this patch is desired.  Look for "(2)" in what you
> quoted.

So are you saying that starting with v2.14.0, you accept patches into `pu`
for which you would previously have required multiple iterations before
even considering it for `pu`?

Frankly, I am a bit surprised that this obvious change from `unsigned
long` to `size_t` is not required in this case before queuing, but if the
rules have changed to lower the bar for patch submissions, I am all for
it. I always felt that we are wasting contributors' time a little too
freely and too deliberately.

Ciao,
Dscho