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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Junio,

On Sun, 23 Apr 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx> 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.

Dang, I forgot to Cc: Peff and René... And I sent out v5 before adding
them, sorry!

Ciao,
Dscho

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]