From owner-freebsd-arch Sat Jun 2 13: 7:10 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from earth.backplane.com (earth-nat-cw.backplane.com [208.161.114.67]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A905937B423; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 13:07:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon@earth.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by earth.backplane.com (8.11.3/8.11.2) id f52K76S04853; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 13:07:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 13:07:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Matt Dillon Message-Id: <200106022007.f52K76S04853@earth.backplane.com> To: "David O'Brien" Cc: Garance A Drosihn , David Wolfskill , arch@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-standards@bostonradio.org Subject: Re: time_t definition is wrong References: <200106012318.f51NI8w38590@bunrab.catwhisker.org> <200106020823.f528N5O98998@earth.backplane.com> <20010602085237.A73968@dragon.nuxi.com> <200106021739.f52Hd9V03943@earth.backplane.com> <20010602124907.G31257@dragon.nuxi.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG : :On Sat, Jun 02, 2001 at 03:33:03PM -0400, Garance A Drosihn wrote: :> :> I don't have any strong feeling about what is "right" in this :> case, but I do think it would be appropriate to back out the :> change to time_t until the question *is* correctly sorted out. : :I don't see why? We can't even agree there is a problem. And if dangous :kernel commits can stay in, so can this one. : :-- :-- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) This is no justification for your commit, Dave. By that reasoning you could justify everything under the sun simply by saying that someone, somewhere else, at some time in the past, did something that was more dangerous. Give me a break. -Matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message