From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "David A. Wheeler" Subject: Re: Parseable commit header Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 12:49:24 -0400 Message-ID: <42629394.1090804@dwheeler.com> References: <20050417062236.GA3261@scotty.home> Reply-To: dwheeler@dwheeler.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Apr 17 18:44:02 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DNCs2-0002jJ-6I for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sun, 17 Apr 2005 18:43:42 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261356AbVDQQrb (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Apr 2005 12:47:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261358AbVDQQrb (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Apr 2005 12:47:31 -0400 Received: from cujo.runbox.com ([193.71.199.138]:17822 "EHLO cujo.runbox.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261356AbVDQQr3 (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Apr 2005 12:47:29 -0400 Received: from [10.9.9.16] (helo=lassie.runbox.com) by greyhound.runbox.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DNCvh-0002il-5p; Sun, 17 Apr 2005 18:47:29 +0200 Received: from [70.17.101.238] (helo=[192.168.2.73]) by lassie.runbox.com with asmtp (uid:258406) (Exim 4.34) id 1DNCvg-0005Vs-4W; Sun, 17 Apr 2005 18:47:29 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2-1.3.2 (X11/20050324) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: "Stefan-W. Hahn" In-Reply-To: <20050417062236.GA3261@scotty.home> X-Sender: 258406@vger.kernel.org Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Stefan-W. Hahn wrote: > Hi, > > after playing a while with git-pasky it is a crap to interpret the date of > commit logs. Though it was a good idea to put the date in a parseable format > (seconds since), but the format of the commit itself is not good parseable. > Should be: ... > Committer-Dater: 1113684324 +0200 I'm probably coming in late to the game, but exactly why is seconds-since-epoch format used instead of a format more easily understood by humans? Yes, I know tools can easily convert that, but you're already using an ASCII format; why not just record it in a format that's easily eyeballed like ISO's yyyymmddThhmmss [timezone]? E.G.: 20050417T171520 +0200 or some such? I'm SURE that people will mention things like "the patch I posted on April 17, 2005", and having the patch format record times that way, directly, would be convenient to the poor slobs^H^H^H^H^H developers who come later. Yes, a tool can handle the conversion, but choosing formats so a tool is unneeded for simple stuff is often better....! --- David A. Wheeler