From: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 01:42:30 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] name-rev: avoid cutoff timestamp underflow
Message-ID: <20190923012838.3hzai6ho7vjjhkpb@camp.crustytoothpaste.net>
In-Reply-To: <20190922180143.25026-1-szeder.dev@gmail.com>

On 2019-09-22 at 18:01:43, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> diff --git a/builtin/name-rev.c b/builtin/name-rev.c
> index c785fe16ba..a4d8d312ab 100644
> --- a/builtin/name-rev.c
> +++ b/builtin/name-rev.c
> @@ -9,7 +9,11 @@
>  #include "sha1-lookup.h"
>  #include "commit-slab.h"
>  
> -#define CUTOFF_DATE_SLOP 86400 /* one day */
> +/*
> + * One day.  See the 'name a rev close to epoch' test in t6120 when

This piece of code says "close to"…

> +test_expect_success 'name-rev a rev shortly after epoch' '

…but this says "shortly after."

Overall, I think the idea is definitely sane, though.
-- 
brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US
OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204