Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> That's one of the reasons I split this out from patch 2; we can see
> exactly what must be done to make each case work. And in fact I had
> originally started to write a patch that simply changed t1508 to expect
> failure. I could still be persuaded to go that way if anybody feels
> strongly.
I do not feel strongly either way myself. It just is interesting
that the older end of the history is with @{20.years.ago} special
case that is only for time-based query, while the newer end of the
history is with @{0} special case.
