Re: [PATCH 2/6] Specify explicitly where we parse timestamps

Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

-	unsigned long number = strtoul(date, &end, 10);
+	time_t number = parse_timestamp(date, &end, 10);

This hunk does not belong to this step.  Everybody else in this step

obviously I meant "the left half of this hunk" ;-)

still receives parse_timestamp()'s return value in ulong, not time_t.
I presume that that will happen in the final step 6/6 (which could
be a huge patch that exceeds 100k?)