Re: [PATCH v4 0/9] Introduce timestamp_t for timestamps

> Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> > Changes since v3:
> >
> > - fixed the fix in archive-zip.c that tried to report a too large
> >   timestamp (and would have reported the uninitialized time_t instead)
> >
> > - adjusted the so-far forgotten each_reflog() function (that was
> >   introduced after v1, in 80f2a6097c4 (t/helper: add test-ref-store to
> >   test ref-store functions, 2017-03-26)) to use timestamp_t and PRItime,
> >   too
> >
> > - removed the date_overflows() check from time_to_tm(), as it calls
> >   gm_time_t() which already performs that check
> >
> > - the date_overflows() check in show_ident_date() was removed, as we do
> >   not know at that point yet whether we use the system functions to
> >   render the date or not (and there would not be a problem in the latter
> >   case)
> 
> Assuming that the list consensus is to go with a separate
> timestamp_t (for that added Cc for those whose comments I saw in an
> earlier round), the patches looked mostly good (I didn't read with
> fine toothed comb the largest one 6/8 to see if there were
> inadvertent or missed conversions from ulong to timestamp_t,
> though), modulo a few minor "huh?" comments I sent separately.