Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Shawn O. Pearce, Wed, Aug 20, 2008 01:44:33 +0200:
> > 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.
>
> Maybe I'm missing something, but aren't unsynchronized clocks a common
> thing in personal computing? Even maybe less common, but noticably
> frequent, the clocks with the date set way back in the past (by malice
> or accident)?
Oh, yea, clock skew is very common. Clock skew by years is not
unexpected either.
We could pick any number for the limit, just so long as its so
large that the size of the reflog for it to be a valid @{nth}
request would be something like 1 TB, and thus be highly unlikely.
I was just trying to be cute by using the original commit timestamp
of Git itself. Perhaps 12936648 (1TB / 83)?
--
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
