From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 14:00:46 GMT
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git v2.9.1
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1607131600110.6426@virtualbox>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq60sa7rj2.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

Hi,

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > In case it wasn't clear, I was mostly guessing there. So I dug a bit
> > further, and indeed, I am wrong. Linux never bumped to a 64-bit time_t
> > on i386 because of the ABI headaches.
> 
> X-< (yes, I knew).
> 
> > That being said, I still think the "clamp to time_t" strategy is
> > reasonable. Unless you are doing something really exotic like pretending
> > to be from the future, nobody will care for 20 years.
> 
> Yup.  It is a minor regression for them to go from ulong to time_t,
> because they didn't have to care for 90 years or so but now they do
> in 20 years, I'd guess, but hopefully after that many years,
> everybody's time_t would be sufficiently large.
> 
> I suspect Cobol programmers in the 50s would have said a similar
> thing about the y2k timebomb they created back then, though ;-)
> 
> > And at that point, systems with a 32-bit time_t are going to have
> > to do _something_, because time() is going to start returning
> > bogus values. So as long as we behave reasonably (e.g., clamping
> > values and not generating wrapped nonsense), I think that's a fine
> > solution.
> 
> OK.

I kept the unsigned long -> time_t conversion after reading the thread so
far.

Ciao,
Dscho