On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 02:29:01PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:

As for this strvec.h s/int/size_t/ topic. I'm not taking that anywhere,
Jeff suggested it and came up with the patch, I figured more helpful
than "if we change s/int/size_t/g for x, shouldn't we change that for y
which whe assign x to?" would be patches I had to do that, which I'd
come up with after Jeff suggested this direction in response to another
topic.

I'm not inherently opposed to further int/size_t cleanups. But the
trouble is that my single patch stands on its own as an improvement to a
real issue, and does not (as far as I know) have any functional
downsides (either known or even hypothetical, aside from the obvious
mismatch that some callers will still use "int").

But doing wide-spread int/size_t conversion has less obvious immediate
benefit, is much easier to get wrong, and may introduce further
complications (e.g., differences of opinion in whether we should be
passing strvecs around more, or just using size_t in more places).

So I don't mind a series in that direction (though I don't necessarily
think it is the best use of time), but I'd prefer not to see my original
patch tied up in it.

-Peff