Re: [PATCH v4 0/9] Introduce timestamp_t for timestamps

From: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
To: Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@gmail.com>
Cc: "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>,
	"Git mailing list" <git@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Torsten Bögershausen" <tboegi@web.de>,
	"Jeff King" <peff@peff.net>, "René Scharfe" <l.s.r@web.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/9] Introduce timestamp_t for timestamps
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 16:02:26 +0200 (CEST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1704241601140.3480@virtualbox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+P7+xoZ_dTvg9b6uckD4-=hHHNE42SCApzs9QO0YddpKXCR5g@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Jacob,

On Sun, 23 Apr 2017, Jacob Keller wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 8:29 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> > Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> >
> >> Changes since v3:
> >>
> >> - fixed the fix in archive-zip.c that tried to report a too large
> >>   timestamp (and would have reported the uninitialized time_t instead)
> >>
> >> - adjusted the so-far forgotten each_reflog() function (that was
> >>   introduced after v1, in 80f2a6097c4 (t/helper: add test-ref-store to
> >>   test ref-store functions, 2017-03-26)) to use timestamp_t and PRItime,
> >>   too
> >>
> >> - removed the date_overflows() check from time_to_tm(), as it calls
> >>   gm_time_t() which already performs that check
> >>
> >> - the date_overflows() check in show_ident_date() was removed, as we do
> >>   not know at that point yet whether we use the system functions to
> >>   render the date or not (and there would not be a problem in the latter
> >>   case)
> >
> > Assuming that the list consensus is to go with a separate
> > timestamp_t (for that added Cc for those whose comments I saw in an
> > earlier round), the patches looked mostly good (I didn't read with
> > fine toothed comb the largest one 6/8 to see if there were
> > inadvertent or missed conversions from ulong to timestamp_t,
> > though), modulo a few minor "huh?" comments I sent separately.
> >
> > Will queue; thanks.
> 
> I think that this timestamp_t makes sense. I didn't get a chance to
> review the code to make sure nothing was forgotten, but I think the
> direction makes sense to resolve the problems with current time_t and
> ulong assumptions.

TBH I rely a bit on the combination of compiling on Windows and on 32-bit
Linux to make sure that all the callers are converted. Originally, I was
more diligent, of course, but it took a while to get this patch series
into `pu` and there are so many possible new callers...

Ciao,
Dscho