Re: Back-dating commits--way back--for constitution.git

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Aug 3, 2010, 13:20 UTC
Message-ID: <20100803132026.GA14883@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <201008031519.11012.jnareb@gmail.com>

On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 03:19:09PM +0200, Jakub Narebski wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

> > I am not sure there isn't some unportability at the lowest level. We
> > freely interchange between time_t and unsigned long in the low-level
> > date code. It probably happens to work because casting the bits back and
> > forth between signed and unsigned types generally works, as long as you
> > end up with the type that you want. But it isn't necessarily portable,
> > and there can be subtle bugs. See, for example, my recent 9ba0f033.
> 
> Well, at least there is not a problem at lowest of low, i.e. repository
> format level, thanks to the use of textual representation for epoch.

Yes, the good news that this is purely a code problem. The data format is fine. It would just take somebody going through the code and switching all "unsigned long" to "long long" (or time_t, or even "gittime_t" if we want to abstract it).

-Peff