[rb-general] [PATCH] Document timestamp clamping

[Ximin Luo]

Daniel Kahn Gillmor:
> On Fri 2016-11-04 12:53:19 -0400, Holger Levsen wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 10:32:37AM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>>> I think clamping is the right thing to do, which means i think the spec
>>> is currently wrong.  We should fix it.  Just because it's a rare case
>>> doesn't mean it should be ignored.
>>
>> I must say that the logic of these two paragraphs sounds very
>> compelling. I'm not fully convinced yet, that clamping is right and the
>> spec is wrong though. Can you summarize clamping in one simple sentence?
> 
> Sure:
> 
> +			Where build processes embed timestamps that are not
> +			"current", but are somehow related to the source and
> +			the build processes, they MUST use a timestamp no later
> +			than <envar>SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH</envar>.
> 

I'm also convinced by the argument that "the spec is currently wrong" and this one extra paragraph is fine. I would tweak it to: 

+			Where build processes embed timestamps that are not
+			"current", but are nevertheless still specific to one
+			execution of the build process, they MUST use a
+                       timestamp no later than <envar>SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH</envar>.

Timestamps that are "related to the source" should be reproducible anyway, and the extra adverbs I added I think tie it to the context better.

X

-- 
GPG: ed25519/56034877E1F87C35
GPG: rsa4096/1318EFAC5FBBDBCE
https://github.com/infinity0/pubkeys.git