Howard Chu wrote: > markus.widmer(a)daasi.de wrote: >> We could reproduce this with 2.4.42, 2.4.44 and 2.4.48. We hope you can >> reproduce this as well to see what is happening here. > > Yes, can reproduce this. The function that converts a component-wise time > into a timet is referencing time since 1970. The date in 1956 would yield a > negative timet value but the fields are unsigned ints, so instead it's treated > as 17,000 years in the future. We can probably change this to handle signed > timestamps but need to consider this further. > I believe the best way forward would be to allow signed values, and also to switch our epoch reference from 1970-01-01 to 0000-01-01 (i.e., use Gregorian Proleptic calendar). Year zero would be 1 BCE in this calendar, and anything earlier would be a negative year. Changing these functions will require regenerating any indices. Looks like something we'll rewrite for 2.5 but leave 2.4 alone.