Re: [PATCH] Unify human represented timestamp formats.

Nuutti Kotivuori <naked@iki.fi> writes:
> > Okay, I'd like to propose:
> >
> > Sat 2002-06-22 11:14:42 +03:00
>
> I can do that. But ask everybody else for the consensus on using that.

That's what I'm doing :-).

> >> The dubious part is 'svnlook'. Should that use this same function?
> >> This means that TZ needs to be set very carefully for it. I'd want
> >> some input on this.
> >
> > Oh, the question is, should it print dates in the server's local
> > timezone, or should it print exactly what is stored in the
> > repository (which is probably GMT, or maybe some other non-local
> > timezone)?
>
> The repository timestamps are GMT, if they were to be let out to the
> user as is, which is not going to happen.

So what exactly is the "dubious part" about svnlook, then?

> That was the discussion sometime back. There's the problem that if the
> date format is customizable, then the machine parsability of any
> output which contains dates goes down a bit. But anyway, I'd suppose
> that's a post-1.0 issue.

I can tell you right now that if the human-presentation date strings
do not include the month name, then this becomes a pre-1.0 issue for
me personally :-).

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Jun 22 22:36:29 2002