>so that inclusion empirically unnecessary

this seems like a post-rationalization. when an app generates a file to send to another service, it's usually a good practice to timestamp that. unless you're severely bandwidth-constrained, putting a timestamp in your protocol almost always solves more problems than it creates. "we shouldn't include a timestamp because it might at some point trigger a date-math bug" is just not how software gets built.

▲

adrianN an hour ago | parent [-]

Maybe we should think about building software in a way that only adds stuff that is truly necessary.

	▲	swsieber 43 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I have. I don't like it. I'd rather have the ability to debug, redundant checks, etc. than only what's truly necessary.
	▲	notatoad 34 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		if this bug was caused by a lack of a datestamp instead of the inclusion of one, you'd be here leaving comments about how silly it was they didn't include something as standard and widely useful as a datestamp, and that of course that was necessary.