On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 12:50:40 -0700 Russ Allbery <[email protected]> wrote:
> Andrew Deason <[email protected]> writes: > > Oh, I thought we'd just use the Unix epoch since it just makes some > > of this easier. A note on converting to pre-UTC dates seems good, > > though. > > Jeffrey has a good point, though: we lose representability of dates > that can currently be handled with CIFS. Then we just make the absolute timestamps signed. It just seems better to me to start from an epoch that's a bit more well-defined (or at least, more easily well-defined; we can always define 1 Jan 1600 as X seconds before 1 Jan 1970, but that seems strangely indirect). -- Andrew Deason [email protected] _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
