Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > The value 1112911993 was chosen for the limit as it is the commit
> > timestamp for e83c516331 "Initial revision of "git" ...". Any
> > reflogs in existance should contain timestamps dated later than
> > the date Linus first stored Git into itself, as reflogs came about
> > quite a bit after that.
> >
> > Additionally a reflog with 1,112,911,993 record entries is also
> > simply not valid. Such a reflog would require at least 87 TB to
> > store just the old and new SHA-1 values. So our randomly chosen
> > upper limit for @{nth} notation is "big enough" that users will
> > not run into it by accident.
>
> Hmm, would we want to apply that logic to replace the magic "8-digit" rule
> in date.c::match_digit()?
No. Isn't match_digit() in the code path used by GIT_COMMITTER_DATE?
We should handle dates as far back as Sat Mar 3 01:46:40 1973 as
seconds-since-epoch to support conversion tools which bring in old
history that predates Git's inception.
If anything the reflog code should change its test to be the same
"8-digit" rule. A reflog of 100,000,000 entries requires at least
7.9G, a threshold which isn't utterly insane (as it fits on a DVD-R)
but still is not really reasonable for current Git reflog.
--
Shawn.
--
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
