Re: [PATCH v2] date: detect underflow when parsing dates with positive timezone offset

[darcy <acednes@gmail.com>]

On 4/6/24 19:33, Jeff King wrote:

> I think the 2099 limitation is there because 2100 is not a leap year,
> and the code has over-simplified computation there (it counts every 4th
> year as a leap year, which is not generally true for century boundaries,
> except for 2000 because it is divisible by 400).

Ah, that makes sense, thanks.

> If you're interested in picking up the negative timestamp work, I'd be
> happy to discuss it. It's been on my todo list for a long time, but I
> never quite get around to it.

I may look at this in the future, but this looks a little out of my depth
at the moment, as I am still unfamiliar with the codebase.

For the moment, I will just add the check at year 2099, and possibly will
revisit this when I have more time on my hands.