Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>> diff --git a/builtin/credential-cache--daemon.c b/builtin/credential-cache--daemon.c
>> index f3c89831d4a..338058be7f9 100644
>> --- a/builtin/credential-cache--daemon.c
>> +++ b/builtin/credential-cache--daemon.c
>> @@ -127,6 +127,9 @@ static void serve_one_client(FILE *in, FILE *out)
>> if (e) {
>> fprintf(out, "username=%s\n", e->item.username);
>> fprintf(out, "password=%s\n", e->item.password);
>> + if (e->item.password_expiry_utc != TIME_MAX)
>> + fprintf(out, "password_expiry_utc=%"PRItime"\n",
>> + e->item.password_expiry_utc);
>> }
>
> Is there a particular reason to use TIME_MAX as the sentinel value here,
> and not just "0"? It's not that big a deal either way, but it's more
> usual in our code base to use "0" if there's no reason not to (and it
> seems like nothing should be expiring in 1970 these days).
This is my fault ;-). Here, there is no difference between 0 and
TIME_MAX, but elsewhere the code needed
if (expiry != 0 && expiry < time(NULL))
to see if the entry has expired. If the sentinel for an entry that
will never expire were TIME_MAX, you do not need the first half of
the expression.
I am OK either way.
