(in gmail so pardon top posting)

As I said, this series does *not* tighten the existing code anyway, so
it is not like something that used to be accepted are now getting rejected.

Happy?

What I was worried about is actually the other way around, though.


On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Johannes Schindelin
[off-list ref] wrote:

Hi Junio,

On Tue, 25 Apr 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

In any case, it is a question unrelated to the work I performed in
this patch series: the raison d'être of these patches is to allow
timestamps to refer to dates that are currently insanely far in the
future.

Yes, but the job of the maintainer is to prevent narrow-focused
individual contributors from throwing us into a hole we cannot dig out
of by closing the door for plausible future enhancements.

You make it sound as if I made the code stricter in any way, or even
introduced a check that was not there before.

As I did no such thing, you may want to reword your statement?

Ciao,
Dscho