Re: [WIP v2 1/2] Adding a record-time-zone command option for commit

[Shengfa Lin <shengfa@google.com>]

>> Yes, we could check it in datestamp(), but ... 
>>
>>> Initially, I thought this would be sufficient to show "-0000" in commit log
>>> message. However, I found that the show_date function is used for "decoding";
>>> converting timestamp and tz to more readable format. Then I realize the
>>> function won't distinguish between +0 and -0 as it only takes in a tz as
>>> argument. As a result,...
>>
>> ... I would have imagined that you do not have to deal with all
>> those complications if you don't hook this to such a low level of
>> the call graph.  That is why I wondered:
>> ...
>
> Let me answer some of my puzzlement myself; that is, I would have
> understood the change well if it were explained to me this way, and
> if that explanation matched what the patches did ;-)

Yes, I agree.

> The topic has two major parts.
> 
> The code that prepares the timestamp to be recorded for the current
> user, who wants to record an anonymous timezone "-0000", is one (and
> the easier) part.  And this part could be done all inside
> ident_default_date() without touching anything in date.c; when we
> need to call datestamp(), we are getting the current time for the
> current user, so we can mask the timezone.

So for this part, there is no need to modify datestamp in dates.c.
We could modify ident_default_date buf after datestamp to set the last
5 bytes to "-0000" using strcpy.

> The other part is that we need to read the timestamp from existing
> records, and if we choose to distinguish between timestamp in UTC
> and timestamp with anonymous timezone, we'd need to devise a way to
> encode the anonymous timezone differently.  It is where the extra
> bit that says "this bit does not usually mean anything but only when
> the offset (which is a signed integer whose valid range is set to
> between -2400 to +2400 by date.c::match_tz()) is zero, and this bit
> is set, the zone is anonymous" comes in.

Yes, that's correct.

> 	Side note.  I suspect the damage to the callchain can be
> 	limited much narrower if we didn't add this bit throughout
> 	the API.  What if we instead pick a number outside the valid
> 	range of offsets, say -10000, as a sentinel value and passed
> 	that throughout the code when we want an anonymous zone?

Good idea.

> 	The functions in the callchain that care about the timezone
> 	must understand how anonymous zone is encoded anyway, so to
> 	them it's a matter of using an int plus one bit or using an
> 	int that can have a special value.  But other functions in
> 	the callchain whose sole purpose (with respect to the
> 	timezone information) is to pass it between their caller and
> 	their callee as an opaque piece of data, using just a single
> 	integer is much less error prone---the patch does not have
> 	to touch them at all.

That would be easier to follow and requires less changes as well.

> Thanks.

Thanks for the clarification. Now I think we have a much better
understanding. I will try to do a better job describing patches
next time.