From: Mike Eisler (mre@eng.sun.com)
Date: 07/24/98-06:57:33 PM Z
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 16:57:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Mike Eisler <mre@eng.sun.com> Subject: Re: Ratholes (was Re: NFS Time: not UTC) Message-ID: <Roam.SIMC.2.0.6.901324653.26518.mre@eng.sun.com> > I'm fairly amazed at the bandwidth that's been spent discussing the time So am I. > issues. Is there any real evidence that v3's notion of time is inadequate? > > I can perhaps see allowing negative offsets from the epoch, though would > love to hear why this is indeed a genuine problem. because on my operating system I can set times to below the epoch. when you give user the ability to do something, they do it. in fact I just had a bug report from a user that noted that he used to be able to manipalted negative times over NFS, and in recent version of my company's product he can't (because the NFS implementation was changed to comply with the protocol). > I can barely see the need to go beyond 2106 or whenever, because I have a > hard time believing that by then either (a) we won't be using NFS at all, This attitude is what triggered the Y2000 crisis. I've already provided several arguments why we should use some foresight. > or (b) there will at least have been an NFS v5 - so what's the hurry to fix > it in v4? Hurry? At the rate at which are reaching consensus on anything, Y2106 will be an issue. -mre
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 03/04/05-01:46:05 AM Z CST