On 8/8/2011 4:42 PM, Andrew Deason wrote: > 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).
I don't have a strong feeling about the epoch. I am fine with negative timestamp values.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
