Re: [PATCH 0/3] limit the size of the packs we receive

2016-08-16 Thread Jeff King
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 04:44:01PM +0200, Christian Couder wrote: >> [sizes and signedness of off_t] > I can add something along your explanations in the commit message if > it is prefered. I think it's probably OK without it. -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe

Re: [PATCH 0/3] limit the size of the packs we receive

2016-08-16 Thread Christian Couder
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Jeff King wrote: > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 10:16:58AM +0200, Christian Couder wrote: > >> - changed strtoul() to strtoumax() in the first 2 patches, as >> suggested by Peff, >> >> - changed git_config_ulong() to git_config_int64() and used

Re: [PATCH 0/3] limit the size of the packs we receive

2016-08-16 Thread Jeff King
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 10:16:58AM +0200, Christian Couder wrote: > Changes from previous RFC version > ~ > > - added documentation to all the 3 patches, Good idea. > - changed strtoul() to strtoumax() in the first 2 patches, as > suggested by Peff, > >

[PATCH 0/3] limit the size of the packs we receive

2016-08-16 Thread Christian Couder
Goal In https://public-inbox.org/git/20150612182045.GA23698%40peff.net/, Peff sent a patch that is used by GitHub to abort `git receive-pack` when the size of the pack we receive is bigger than a configured limit. GitLab is interested in using the same approach and in standardizing the

[RFC/PATCH 0/3] limit the size of the packs we receive

2016-08-15 Thread Christian Couder
In https://public-inbox.org/git/20150612182045.GA23698%40peff.net/, Peff sent a patch that is used by GitHub to abort `git receive-pack` when the size of the pack we receive is bigger than a configured limit. GitLab is interested in using the same approach and in standardizing the error messages