Hi, On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Sam Vilain wrote: > 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] > > Probably a good idea, though it would break cg-admin-rewritehist. FWIW I don't think we have to care that much about cg-admin-rewritehist, since it lives on as git-filter-branch, and we can adapt it as we go. Ciao, Dscho - 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
