[rb-general] [PATCH] Document timestamp clamping

[Daniel Kahn Gillmor]

On Sun 2016-11-06 06:37:00 -0500, Ximin Luo wrote:
> 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.

I'm happy this revision, thanks, Ximin!  If anyone is concerned about
this distracting from the rest of the spec, i could also imagine a
parenthetical aside about "(this is not common)" or "(but removing these
timestamps entirely is preferred)".

           --dkg
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 930 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.reproducible-builds.org/pipermail/rb-general/attachments/20161107/3646812b/attachment.sig>