Re: Workaround for invalid firmware-date values

[Martin Husemann <martin%duskware.de@localhost>]

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 09:10:28PM +0000, Julio Merino wrote:
> Should we care?  I think it's clearer to the reader if the code says 70 
> (i.e. the epoch) instead of a seemingly-random value.  We are not going 
> to hit those cases anyway...

I don't think it is cleaner - what do DMI dates have to do with the unix
epoch? The previous value (1990) was fine. However, I surely hope that we
won't care about DMI compatible machines manufactured 2070 or later.

Martin