Re: [BUG] minor: wrong handling of GIT_AUTHOR_DATE

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Aug 17, 2008, 05:27 UTC
Message-ID: <7vljyw9pok.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0808162054050.3324@nehalem.linux-foundation.org>

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:

Show 6 quoted lines

> [ Those four deleted lines I removed just because the cases had already 
>   been handled, eg the ">1900" case was already handled when we checked 
>   for a four-digit year, and the >70 case was handled when we checked for 
>   exactly two digits ]
>
> Hmm?

Show 11 quoted lines

> @@ -488,10 +504,6 @@ static int match_digit(const char *date, struct tm *tm, int *offset, int *tm_gmt
>  
>  	if (num > 0 && num < 32) {
>  		tm->tm_mday = num;
> -	} else if (num > 1900) {
> -		tm->tm_year = num - 1900;
> -	} else if (num > 70) {
> -		tm->tm_year = num;
>  	} else if (num > 0 && num < 13) {
>  		tm->tm_mon = num-1;
>  	}

The comment above this part says we always favor mday over mon, but I wonder why this sequence is not like:

	if (tm->tm_mday is not set && num > 0 && num < 32)
		tm->tm_mday = num;
	else if (tm->tm_mon is not set && num > 0 && num < 13)
		tm->tm_mon = num - 1;

Is this because we do not initialize tm fields to "unknown" in the beginning? I admit I haven't bothered to look at this part of the code for a looong time.