On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 2:29 AM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes:
>> There is room for new headers, and older versions of git will ignore
>> them. You could add a new "committer-timestamp" field that elaborates on
>> the timestamp included on the committer line. Newer versions of git
>> would respect it, and older versions would fall back to using the
>> committer timestamp.
>> But I really wonder if anybody actually cares about adding sub-second
>> timestamp support, or if it is merely "because SVN has it".
> Roundtrip conversions may benefit from sub-second timestamps, but
> personally I think negative timestamps are more interesting and of
> practical use.  Prehistoric projects need them even if they intend
> to switch to Git, never to go back to their original tarballs and
> collection of RCS ,v files.
> And if we were to add "committer-timestamp" and friends to support
> negative timestamps anyway (because older tools will not support
> them), supporting sub-second part might be something we want to
> think about at the same time.

Posix-time is signed, but I suppose the git tools do not expect/allow
a '-' character in the stream.  Has git considered the year-2038

No hurry...

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to