David A. Wheeler wrote: > The paper's description of date handling sounds odd, where "dates" are > really counts of system calls. If the "starting date" is arbitrary (like Jan > 1, 1970) that would look odd. But if the "starting date" were forcibly set to > a > human-reasonable value (like the date-time of the last commit, or of the > latest source > file), then it might be easier to accept the results.
This was curious to me too — to wit, the paper describes that the Debian «wheezy» distribution was being built so it was interesting to me that the first timestamp in the debian/changelog was not chosen, á la SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH. Best wishes, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org 🍥 chris-lamb.co.uk `-