On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:16:02PM -0500, Joshua Judson Rosen wrote: > On 02/15/2015 06:06 AM, Steven Honeyman wrote: > >On 15 February 2015 at 07:38, Explorer <explore...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>This is a trivial change to allow a 5-digit-or-more year in 'ls' timestamp > >>output. > >> > >>Signed-off-by: Kang-che Sung <explorer09-at-gmail.com> > > > >You realise we're good for almost 8000 more years? :D > > I guess it can already happen if your clock is grossly miscalibrated, though?
Only on systems with 64-bit time_t. Otherwise years past 2038 don't exist. :-) > Or as a result of corruption in a filesystem, archive, FTP transfer, or > any number of other things (including user error). I guess it's also > conceivable that someone might want to apply `accurate' timestamps > to things like photographs of cave-paintings from the year -5k.... This seems like an incredibly bad idea since the calendar isn't even defined that far back, and times in seconds relative to the epoch are not well-defined for pre-Gregorian dates as to whether they would represent the time in effect at the time, converted to seconds, or the actual number of relative seconds. > I'd actually be really interested in hearing the motivations for the change-- > especially if there's a story about an actual encounter with > the Y10k problem (or the Y-1k problem). I'm pretty sure this was just a theoretical error noticed while reading code. There's unlikely to be any practical application. Rich _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
