From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D3C71F852 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 23:03:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S237185AbiBAXDm (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Feb 2022 18:03:42 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:59137 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229470AbiBAXDl (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Feb 2022 18:03:41 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EC7417643D; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 18:03:41 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=CFiQsO86lVQf chN8dp506pEqaQBdyRtri3aEruCgIdg=; b=YZBsW/14BADyTsZhPIdzZW4FK6tN WcUxZ3/BI5HUF4cAbctafRUmCzwUcIraaaLi1c6J7jsWNyeGmY5iLx2QSXcgQw+B /eYVxbwoEdit2w3+jyNKWcRMMP0d8v3K161JY7+AHI3Bwds+033xo7gFKOddeME3 jSLs3mGND5DqvPU= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F78E17643C; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 18:03:41 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.133.2.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AADED17642E; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 18:03:38 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason Cc: Han-Wen Nienhuys via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, Han-Wen Nienhuys , Han-Wen Nienhuys Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] refs.h: make all flags arguments unsigned References: <220201.86ilty9vq2.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2022 15:03:37 -0800 In-Reply-To: <220201.86ilty9vq2.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> (=?utf-8?B?IsOG?= =?utf-8?B?dmFyIEFybmZqw7Zyw7A=?= Bjarmason"'s message of "Tue, 01 Feb 2022 21:20:59 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 310FB292-83B3-11EC-860A-CBA7845BAAA9-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 Bjarmason writes: > The post-image LGTM, but I'm also a bit "meh" on the churn just for > signed->unsigned, especially given the conflict with my in-flight > ab/no-errno-from-resolve-ref-unsafe. But it's not too bad, and if Junio > hasn't complained about it... I won't complain myself. I'd still try to help newer developers, but my intention is to make it the responsibility for individual developers to make sure their topic works well with topics in flight ;-) Between "enum" and #define that is stored in "unsigned", neither gives us much type safety in C; "enum" may be somewhat worse by giving a false sense of having a type safety that does not really exist, than "unsigned int" that is more honestly defeats such a false sense of safety. So I have no strong preference either way.