Re: [PATCH v4 8/9] Use uintmax_t for timestamps

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> >> Should we at least clamp in date_overflows() so that large values
> >> representable with timestamp_t that will become unrepresentable when
> >> we start allowing negative timestamps would be rejected?  That way we
> >> won't have to hear complaints from the people who used timestamps far
> >> in the future that we regressed the implementation for them by
> >> halving the possible timestamp range.
> >
> > Please note that the date_overflows() command only tests when we are
> > about to call system functions. I do not think that it does what you
> > think it does (namely, validate timestamps when they enter Git).
> 
> OK, then please read my question without date_overflows(), that is,
> "should we at least clamp the values with some new mechanism to leave
> the door open for supporting times before the epoch, even if (and
> especially if) we leave the use of signed integral type for timestamps
> out of the scope of this series?"