"brian m. carlson" [off-list ref] writes:
I will also say that sending one giant patch for this may be a bit hard
to review. While I will defer to Junio's opinion as the maintainer, I
would be more inclined to review this kind of series if it came in in
smaller patches, a few at a time, in which case I would find it a
welcome improvement.
True. As to the specific topic of using "for (int i = 0; ...)",
it is tedious to review for mistakes and 17000+ lines of patch is
not a way to do so. I do not think I would be able to spot a change
in behaviour caused by a hunk like this
int i = 3;
... after some operations ...
- for (i = 0; i < 5; i++)
+ for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++)
if (condition_on_i(i))
break;
... after some operations ...
return i;
after scanning similar changes for 1000+ times in a single huge
patch.