On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 01:01:14PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > I have added an open item about the plan ID part as it applies to v18, > adding the RMT in CC to get an opinion. If we cannot get a consensus > on all that, letting things as they are is still logically correct, > even with the -Wwarnings-format-signedness argument which is not > included by default currently. > > Has somebody an opinion to offer?
It has been one week since this last update, and there has been nothing except the sound of cicadas. IMO, I think that we should just pull the switch and make both of these IDs signed on HEAD, taking case of the potential signedness warning issues. Now, I don't really want to take a leap of faith without the RMT being OK with that now that we are in beta1. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
