Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes: > ... We can certainly stick with it for now (it's awkward if you > really do have an entry on Jan 1 1970, but other than that it's an OK > marker). I agree that the most negatively value is probably a saner > choice, but we can switch to it after the dust settles.
I was trying to suggest that we should strive to switch to the most negative or whatever the most implausible value in the new range (and leave it as a possible bug to be fixed if we missed a place that still used "0 is impossible") while doing the ulong to time_t (or timestamp_t that is i64). "safer in the short term" wasn't meant to be "let's not spend time to do quality work". As long as we are switching, we should follow it through. >> But we need to cross the bridge to signed timestamp sometime, and I >> do not see any reason why that somtime should not be now. > > Yep. > > -Peff
