Ramsay Jones <[email protected]> writes: > I test on 32-bit Linux from time to time, and tonight's 'pu' > branch fails t4202.44, t6007.2,5-6,12-13,16, t6012.2-11, > t6111.2-65. I bisected the t4202 failure to a merge commit > (99d31e1378, merge branch 'jc/name-rev-lw-tag') and I spotted > the 'unsigned long' taggerdate parameter to the is_better_name() > function.
Thanks. My earlier "oh, cutoff that was long also is a timestamp" patch was what I did while making this exact "evil merge" change, and then when I re-integrated everything, I forgot about it. I'll teach my rerere database about this. Thanks.
