From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 19:01:58 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] log: do not segfault on gmtime errors
Message-ID: <20140326190157.GB12912@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqvbv0iy6u.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 11:58:49AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> > Unlike the FreeBSD thing that René brought up, this is not a problem in
> > the code, but just in the test. So I think our options are basically:
> >
> >   1. Scrap the test as unportable.
> >
> >   2. Hard-code a few expected values. I'd be unsurprised if some other
> >      system comes up with a slightly different date in 162396404, so we
> >      may end up needing several of these.
> >
> > I think I'd lean towards (2), just because it is testing an actual
> > feature of the code, and I'd like to continue doing so. And while we may
> > end up with a handful of values, there's probably not _that_ many
> > independent implementations of gmtime in the wild.
> 
> Or "3. Just make sure that 'git log' does not segfault"?

That would not test the FreeBSD case, which does not segfault, but
returns a bogus sentinel value.

I don't know how important that is. This is such a minor feature that it
is not worth a lot of maintenance headache in the test. But I also do
not know if this is going to be the last report, or we will have a bunch
of other systems that need their own special values put into the test.

-Peff