Re: [PATCH v4 8/9] Use uintmax_t for timestamps
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Apr 26, 2017, 13:18 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAPc5daWzotQZoVQ40pmWrgWSPwrcgqEqAcEbjRcJ-Ev_9a73AA@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <alpine.DEB.2.20.1704261131500.3480@virtualbox>
(in gmail so pardon top posting)
As I said, this series does *not* tighten the existing code anyway, so it is not like something that used to be accepted are now getting rejected.
Happy?
What I was worried about is actually the other way around, though.
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
Show 22 quoted lines
> Hi Junio, > > On Tue, 25 Apr 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes: >> >> > In any case, it is a question unrelated to the work I performed in >> > this patch series: the raison d'être of these patches is to allow >> > timestamps to refer to dates that are currently insanely far in the >> > future. >> >> Yes, but the job of the maintainer is to prevent narrow-focused >> individual contributors from throwing us into a hole we cannot dig out >> of by closing the door for plausible future enhancements. > > You make it sound as if I made the code stricter in any way, or even > introduced a check that was not there before. > > As I did no such thing, you may want to reword your statement? > > Ciao, > Dscho