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

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