Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 18:51:15 +0800 From: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> To: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> Cc: Peter Jeremy <peter.jeremy@auss2.alcatel.com.au>, danny@hilink.com.au, committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Y2K compliance question Message-ID: <199901151051.SAA85171@spinner.netplex.com.au> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 14 Jan 1999 22:58:15 MST." <199901150558.WAA21153@harmony.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Warner Losh wrote: > : src/gnu/usr.bin/rcs/lib/rcstime.c > : src/gnu/usr.bin/rcs/lib/rcstime.c > > I see no Y2K problems here. All uses of tm_year assume that it > measures years since 1900, which is correct. It further assumes that > all 2 digit dates are in 1900..1999, which is also correct for this > file because it parses dates stored in the RCS file itself. It stores > dates in the file from 1900..1999 w/o the leading 19 for historical > comapatability reasons. What have I missed? The RCS file format is very specific about this. In the files, years 00-99 are "1900-1999", and everything else is specifically written out in full. The two digit dates are specifically *not* to be converted to full format. Now, if there are bugs in the handling or implementing of this, then fine, otherwise everybody keep your hands off. There are *many* more users of the rcs file format than just rcs itself. If somebody changes rcs to generate "1999" in these fields, it will be generating invalid files, and they can count on being shot on sight. 1/2 :-) Cheers, -Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199901151051.SAA85171>