Re: [PATCH v4 8/9] Use uintmax_t for timestamps
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Apr 26, 2017, 03:45 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqtw5bsufy.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqvapsszoo.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
Show 9 quoted lines
> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes: > >> In any case, it is a question unrelated to the work I performed in this >> patch series: the raison d'être of these patches is to allow timestamps to >> refer to dates that are currently insanely far in the future. > > Yes, but the job of the maintainer is to prevent narrow-focused > individual contributors from throwing us into a hole we cannot dig > out of by closing the door for plausible future enhancements.
Having said that, IIRC, this series does not tighten the existing code to specifically check for integer wrap-around anyway, so in a sense, users who use a timestamp that is in an insanely distant future is already accepting the risk of getting broken in the future, so my answer to the question I asked is "it would be extra nice to future-proof people's data, but not doing anything is probably OK---at least we is not making things worse."