(in gmail so pardon top posting) As I said, this series does *not* tighten the existing code anyway, so it is not like something that used to be accepted are now getting rejected.
Happy? What I was worried about is actually the other way around, though. On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> wrote: > Hi Junio, > > On Tue, 25 Apr 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> 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. > > You make it sound as if I made the code stricter in any way, or even > introduced a check that was not there before. > > As I did no such thing, you may want to reword your statement? > > Ciao, > Dscho
