On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 09:33:01AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Yeah, this is interesting. Definitely so. You learn something new every day ;-). > I however wonder if we should follow our usual pattern of implementing > git_time() with the identical function signature as what we replace > (i.e. system's time()), and #undef/#define the symbol we replace with > git_time, though. Wouldn't it make [1/2] a lot smaller and > future-proof? Yeah, I agree here, too. It was my first thought when I started reading Paul's patches here. I think that your approach is sound and I would be happy to see you queue it. Thanks, Taylor
