From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.6 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C66041FE4E for ; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 16:25:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933592AbcGLQZK (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jul 2016 12:25:10 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:53795 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932139AbcGLQZJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jul 2016 12:25:09 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D36E42886E; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 12:25:07 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=ITrjtyceiEhodX9boOBcKtLTwXo=; b=nyZY4L VWWHn9Jw4h1L503/5hkc1Sx+qRIPuSmGUk9p8DuhvprxEBOHp8gN/zuIc+JTGBK+ 0Cm5mVnSH+EQiI8Q3YlxYlt3ge0oORpA/nLH6ffgqW9IGu4kJbI4KgvyirU83zbu UjvhoADYcC1bzKBv4E5Acox0IrKYIY4CvC8nw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=ot3/vpafx37tRWbnEhMNeil/qsJPO0GG nEFrssBUjTKBbS8yvM0f6kQEfJNdiV3HTtemrXrFa9LwDP40PFraAZZJFLfAOh0D 10CWKuhVwi3UotC1qed1qsmnaJFKNLZetBbGl/XoH0ppPKSt1nQtO0TFKSryWEFG VCjR+UFjvNA= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBE442886D; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 12:25:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4F95C2886C; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 12:25:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Johannes Schindelin , Andreas Schwab , Git Mailing List Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git v2.9.1 References: <87lh17kgdy.fsf@linux-m68k.org> <20160711235417.GA26163@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20160712151630.GE613@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20160712153520.GG613@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20160712160921.GA2965@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 09:25:05 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20160712160921.GA2965@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Tue, 12 Jul 2016 12:09:21 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 323494FA-484D-11E6-A6DE-89D312518317-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > In case it wasn't clear, I was mostly guessing there. So I dug a bit > further, and indeed, I am wrong. Linux never bumped to a 64-bit time_t > on i386 because of the ABI headaches. X-< (yes, I knew). > That being said, I still think the "clamp to time_t" strategy is > reasonable. Unless you are doing something really exotic like pretending > to be from the future, nobody will care for 20 years. Yup. It is a minor regression for them to go from ulong to time_t, because they didn't have to care for 90 years or so but now they do in 20 years, I'd guess, but hopefully after that many years, everybody's time_t would be sufficiently large. I suspect Cobol programmers in the 50s would have said a similar thing about the y2k timebomb they created back then, though ;-) > And at that point, systems with a 32-bit time_t are going to have > to do _something_, because time() is going to start returning > bogus values. So as long as we behave reasonably (e.g., clamping > values and not generating wrapped nonsense), I think that's a fine > solution. OK.