From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: [PATCH] Accept dates before 2000/01/01 when specified as seconds since the epoch Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 12:42:53 +0200 Organization: eudaptics software gmbh Message-ID: <46668FAD.73D1B73F@eudaptics.com> References: <11811175153355-git-send-email-johannes.sixt@telecom.at> <7vtztl5vvb.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jun 06 13:18:11 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HvtWh-0003Po-E4 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 06 Jun 2007 13:18:07 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751610AbXFFLSE (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jun 2007 07:18:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758645AbXFFLSE (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jun 2007 07:18:04 -0400 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:37454 "EHLO ciao.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751610AbXFFLSB (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jun 2007 07:18:01 -0400 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HvtE8-0001Rl-Ry for git@vger.kernel.org; Wed, 06 Jun 2007 12:58:57 +0200 Received: from cm56-163-160.liwest.at ([86.56.163.160]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 06 Jun 2007 12:58:56 +0200 Received: from J.Sixt by cm56-163-160.liwest.at with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 06 Jun 2007 12:58:56 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: cm56-163-160.liwest.at X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano wrote: > > I vaguely recall hitting the same issue soon after date.c was > done, and sending in a patch in the same spirit but with > different implementation (I essentially duplicated that "seconds > since epoch" without any cutoff as the last ditch fallback) long > time ago (this was before I took git over; the patch was rejected). > > It almost makes me wonder if it is better to introduce a special > syntax to denote "seconds since epoch plus timezone offset" for > our Porcelain use, instead of keeping this arbitrary cut-off > date which nobody can agree on and which forces us to roll back > from time to time. For one thing, such a syntax would allow us > to talk about a timestamp before the epoch. > > Perhaps > > "epoch" [-+] [0-9]+ " " [-+][0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9] > > ? OTOH, the previous limit 2000/01/01 was completely arbitrary, while the new limit 100000000secs has some justification: Numbers with fewer digits could be mistaken as dates. -- Hannes