Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: >> Should we at least clamp in date_overflows() so that large values >> representable with timestamp_t that will become unrepresentable when >> we start allowing negative timestamps would be rejected? That way >> we won't have to hear complaints from the people who used timestamps >> far in the future that we regressed the implementation for them by >> halving the possible timestamp range. > > Please note that the date_overflows() command only tests when we are about > to call system functions. I do not think that it does what you think it > does (namely, validate timestamps when they enter Git). OK, then please read my question without date_overflows(), that is, "should we at least clamp the values with some new mechanism to leave the door open for supporting times before the epoch, even if (and especially if) we leave the use of signed integral type for timestamps out of the scope of this series?"