Junio C Hamano wrote: > > I vaguely recall hitting the same issue soon after date.c was > done, and sending in a patch in the same spirit but with > different implementation (I essentially duplicated that "seconds > since epoch" without any cutoff as the last ditch fallback) long > time ago (this was before I took git over; the patch was rejected). > > It almost makes me wonder if it is better to introduce a special > syntax to denote "seconds since epoch plus timezone offset" for > our Porcelain use, instead of keeping this arbitrary cut-off > date which nobody can agree on and which forces us to roll back > from time to time. For one thing, such a syntax would allow us > to talk about a timestamp before the epoch. > > Perhaps > > "epoch" [-+] [0-9]+ " " [-+][0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9] > > ? OTOH, the previous limit 2000/01/01 was completely arbitrary, while the new limit 100000000secs has some justification: Numbers with fewer digits could be mistaken as dates. -- Hannes - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
