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

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Apr 24, 2017, 03:29 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqbmrm1o1k.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <cover.1492771484.git.johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>

Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

Show 17 quoted lines

> 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.