Hi Jacob, On Sun, 23 Apr 2017, Jacob Keller wrote: > On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 8:29 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> 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. > > > > 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