Re: Workaround for invalid firmware-date values

[christos%astron.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

In article <20110119085153.GA22605%mail.duskware.de@localhost>,
Martin Husemann  <martin%duskware.de@localhost> wrote:
>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.

You think? I just don't want to have many random flag days in the system.
Wrap for < 70 has been good so far for everything.

christos