[rb-general] [PATCH] Document timestamp clamping

[Chris Lamb]

HW42 wrote:

> Given that it's used in a bunch of cases I think it's reasonable to
> include it in the spec.

I'm in danger of sounding like a broken record here (!) but I strongly believe
an overriding priority should be to be empathetic to the most common reader
of the specification and thus not get too hung-up on being "technically"
correct. :)

As in, I fear "a bunch" might be misrepresenting the ratio between upstreams
that might require clamping and those do not; in my experience the silent
majority (that do not result in mails to this list) simply do not need to be
worried with it, something in the order of 1000:1 or so.

Don't forget that this quote-specification-unquote also serves as an
advertisement for our endeavours.


Regards,

-- 
      ,''`.
     : :'  :     Chris Lamb
     `. `'`      lamby at debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk
       `-