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=-5.5 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 9DAFB2018F for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2016 16:13:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752365AbcGMQK6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jul 2016 12:10:58 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:63233 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751302AbcGMQKx (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jul 2016 12:10:53 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D87992B7D9; Wed, 13 Jul 2016 12:10:32 -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=I64w97aCUR7p9Vl4RawP9xcZNcA=; b=gdMb6H 850CIsUXqxuitnydx1a7KYuOY/HgiZuBf1W6jZB+4UglMiQVv765yT2DP4OWVJI9 8lTIzpUFyhiiaUzjipFoRdAkbjfUomntFLjJGT8g0bicLF26S3rvI8kluQzNDFcV /OjkLAwl356vu0je7IXcY0/xvCC5QfplP9aMs= 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=kJ5wwa68Goxrrn4FU4eeK2ee9rSWmP0S qRhoJ84x7nh2gWC7YQjYFGsGWEcueDorsCebS/JHO0SPVpUqdLaU1Zd011Cqclkb l7GH4PNmXz68Ci/HxfvjXVkYosBxIA8eQAfu76l0zDiH4IEWQsqjJLhzez5wh+mp 5Kizp13+0F0= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D04972B7D8; Wed, 13 Jul 2016 12:10:32 -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 593A22B7D6; Wed, 13 Jul 2016 12:10:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: Jeff King , 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: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 09:10:30 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Wed, 13 Jul 2016 16:00:46 +0200 (CEST)") 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: 531A1042-4914-11E6-9D12-89D312518317-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Johannes Schindelin writes: > On Tue, 12 Jul 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> 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. > > I kept the unsigned long -> time_t conversion after reading the thread so > far. That's OK at this point; it is not v2.9.x material anyway. The primary reason why I cared 32-bit time_t is not about 2038, by the way. I recall that people wanted to store historical document with ancient timestamp; even if we update to support negative timestamps, they cannot go back to 19th century with 32-bit time_t, but they can with long long or whatever intmax_t is on their system.