Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes:

> René Scharfe <rene.scha...@lsrfire.ath.cx> writes:
>> How about making split_ident_line() a bit friendlier be letting it
>> provide the epoch as default time stamp instead of NULL?  
> Two knee-jerk concerns I have without going back to the callers:
>  * Would that "0" ever be given to the approxidate parser, which
>    rejects ancient dates in numbers-since-epoch format without @
>    prefix?
>  * Does any existing caller use the NULL as a sign to see the input
>    was without date and act on that information?

I looked at all the callers (there aren't that many), and none of
them did "Do this on a person-only ident, and do that on an ident
with timestamp".  So for the callers that ignore timestamp, your
patch will be a no-op, and for others that assume there is a
timestamp, it will turn a crash/segv into output with funny

So I think the patch is a right thing to do (we would need in-code
comment to warn new callers about the semantics, though).

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