Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes: > Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> writes: > >> In any case, it is a question unrelated to the work I performed in this >> patch series: the raison d'être of these patches is to allow timestamps to >> refer to dates that are currently insanely far in the future. > > Yes, but the job of the maintainer is to prevent narrow-focused > individual contributors from throwing us into a hole we cannot dig > out of by closing the door for plausible future enhancements.
Having said that, IIRC, this series does not tighten the existing code to specifically check for integer wrap-around anyway, so in a sense, users who use a timestamp that is in an insanely distant future is already accepting the risk of getting broken in the future, so my answer to the question I asked is "it would be extra nice to future-proof people's data, but not doing anything is probably OK---at least we is not making things worse."
