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

> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 08:29:11PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> > 
> > Will queue; thanks.
> 
> Sorry, I haven't read the series carefully yet (but from a skim I'm
> happy with the overall direction). It does seem to cause failures in
> t4212, though. For example:
> 
>   expecting success: 
>   	commit=$(munge_author_date HEAD 18446744073709551617) &&
>   	echo "Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 +0000" >expect &&
>   	git log -1 --format=%ad $commit >actual &&
>   	test_cmp expect actual
>   
>   fatal: Timestamp too large for this system: 18446744073709551615
>   not ok 7 - date parser recognizes integer overflow
> 
> We used to convert overflows into a sentinel time, but now we die. I
> originally chose the sentinel approach because it lets you use the tools
> to examine and recover from the broken state. I could be convinced that
> dying is better, but clearly we'd need to at least update the tests.