Hi Junio,

On Wed, 21 Nov 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Оля Тележная  <olyatelezhnaya@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >> I am OK if we avoid PRIdMAX and use PRIuMAX instead with a cast to
> >> the corresponding size in this codepath, as long as we properly
> >> handle negative oi.disk_size field, which may be telling some
> >> "unusual" condition to us.
> >
> > Maybe we want to change the type (from off_t to unsigned) directly in
> > struct object_info? That will help us not to make additional
> > checkings. Or, at least, I suggest to add check to
> > oid_object_info_extended() so that this function will give a guarantee
> > that the size is non-negative.
> 
> I am fine with the approach.  The potential gain of allowing
> oi.disk_size is it would allow the code to say "I'll give these
> pieces of info about the object, but the on-disk size is unknown"
> without failing the whole object_info_extended() request.  And I
> personally do not think such an ability is not all that important
> or useful.

I see that this topic advanced to `next`, which means that the Windows
build of `next` is now broken.

To fix this, I prepared a GitGitGadget PR
(https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/87) and will submit it as soon
as I am satisfied that the build works.

Ciao,
Dscho