On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 2:29 AM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: > Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes: > >> There is room for new headers, and older versions of git will ignore >> them. You could add a new "committer-timestamp" field that elaborates on >> the timestamp included on the committer line. Newer versions of git >> would respect it, and older versions would fall back to using the >> committer timestamp. >> >> But I really wonder if anybody actually cares about adding sub-second >> timestamp support, or if it is merely "because SVN has it". > > Roundtrip conversions may benefit from sub-second timestamps, but > personally I think negative timestamps are more interesting and of > practical use. Prehistoric projects need them even if they intend > to switch to Git, never to go back to their original tarballs and > collection of RCS ,v files. > > And if we were to add "committer-timestamp" and friends to support > negative timestamps anyway (because older tools will not support > them), supporting sub-second part might be something we want to > think about at the same time.
Posix-time is signed, but I suppose the git tools do not expect/allow a '-' character in the stream. Has git considered the year-2038 problem? No hurry... Phil -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
