[Monotone-devel] Re: nvm.dates review

[Lapo Luchini]

Zack Weinberg wrote:
>>> Here and elsewhere - since you took out the buffer that would be too
>>> small in CE 10000, why are you still restricting the year to <= 9999?
>>
>> Because that's been the limit before in date_t::now() and I thought 9999
>> is far enough in the future for our use.
> 
> Practically speaking, 9999 is far enough in the future, I imagine by
> then we'll all be using something totally different.  But making the
> code work as far out as you possibly can is good anyway

I'm not sure about that, anything that's not useful is probably
dangerous: if we see a commit in the year one-hundred-thousand it is
because the user really wanted so, or because he used some tool (like
Tailor, or something) that went haywire and the user might better want
to know it?
IMHO the chances are around 0.1% and 99.9% respectively…

Also, limiting to year 9999 has the nice feature that dates can be
assumed to have a fixed width.

-- 
Lapo Luchini - http://lapo.it/

“Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat.”
(Robert A. Heinlein, , "The Cat Who Walks Through Walls", 1985)