Hi Peff, On Mon, 24 Apr 2017, Jeff King wrote: > On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 08:29:11PM -0700, 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. > > > > Will queue; thanks. > > Sorry, I haven't read the series carefully yet (but from a skim I'm > happy with the overall direction). It does seem to cause failures in > t4212, though. For example: > > expecting success: > commit=$(munge_author_date HEAD 18446744073709551617) && > echo "Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 +0000" >expect && > git log -1 --format=%ad $commit >actual && > test_cmp expect actual > > fatal: Timestamp too large for this system: 18446744073709551615 > not ok 7 - date parser recognizes integer overflow > > We used to convert overflows into a sentinel time, but now we die. I > originally chose the sentinel approach because it lets you use the tools > to examine and recover from the broken state. I could be convinced that > dying is better, but clearly we'd need to at least update the tests. Sorry, I dropped this patch in v5 because I did not want to fight this battle. Ciao, Dscho