On Tue Jan 11, 2000 at 05:51:34AM -0800, John Alvord wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> Rather then change the meaning of time_t, why not define an new value of
> epoch_t which is currently zero. That way software can be converted
> gradually and old software will continue to work unchanged. The
> infrastructure will use the epoch_t value to do things the right way.
> Given the recent Y2K scare, getting a label that says your software is
> 2038 compliant should be powerful marketting material in 10-15 years.
>
I think an "epoch_t" makes a great deal of sense.
-Erik
--
Erik B. Andersen Web: http://www.xmission.com/~andersen/
email: andersee@debian.org
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 15 2000 - 21:00:18 EST