On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 02:27:22PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes: > > > ... We can certainly stick with it for now (it's awkward if you > > really do have an entry on Jan 1 1970, but other than that it's an OK > > marker). I agree that the most negatively value is probably a saner > > choice, but we can switch to it after the dust settles. > > I was trying to suggest that we should strive to switch to the most > negative or whatever the most implausible value in the new range > (and leave it as a possible bug to be fixed if we missed a place > that still used "0 is impossible") while doing the ulong to time_t > (or timestamp_t that is i64). > > "safer in the short term" wasn't meant to be "let's not spend time > to do quality work". As long as we are switching, we should follow > it through.
Sure, I'd be much happier to see it done now. I just didn't want to pile on the requirements to the point that step 1 doesn't get done. But I haven't even looked at the code changes needed for time_t. I suspect Dscho has a better feel for it at this point. -Peff
