On 4/6/24 19:33, Jeff King wrote:
I think the 2099 limitation is there because 2100 is not a leap year, and the code has over-simplified computation there (it counts every 4th year as a leap year, which is not generally true for century boundaries, except for 2000 because it is divisible by 400).
Ah, that makes sense, thanks.
If you're interested in picking up the negative timestamp work, I'd be happy to discuss it. It's been on my todo list for a long time, but I never quite get around to it.
I may look at this in the future, but this looks a little out of my depth at the moment, as I am still unfamiliar with the codebase. For the moment, I will just add the check at year 2099, and possibly will revisit this when I have more time on my hands.
