Re: [PATCH v5 0/8] Introduce timestamp_t for timestamps

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

 



René Scharfe <l.s.r@xxxxxx> writes:

> I can't think of many ways to get future time stamps (broken clock,
> broken CMOS battery, bit rot, time travel), so I wouldn't expect a
> change towards better error reporting to affect a lot of users.  (Not
> necessarily as part of this series, of course.)

Better error reporting is one thing, but we do not want to kill "git
log" in the middle by calling die().  

Dropping the patch v4 9/9 that caused us to call die() was a good
thing to do within the scope of this series, I would think.




[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]