Re: [RFC/PATCH] date: allow any format to display local time

[Jeff King <peff@peff.net>]

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 02:50:18PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:

> diff --git a/fast-import.c b/fast-import.c
> index 6c7c3c9..b19a1b5 100644
> --- a/fast-import.c
> +++ b/fast-import.c
> @@ -412,6 +412,10 @@ static void write_crash_report(const char *err)
>  	struct branch *b;
>  	unsigned long lu;
>  	struct recent_command *rc;
> +	struct date_mode dm;
> +
> +	dm.type = DATE_NORMAL;
> +	dm.local = 1;
>  
>  	if (!rpt) {
>  		error("can't write crash report %s: %s", loc, strerror(errno));
> @@ -424,7 +428,7 @@ static void write_crash_report(const char *err)
>  	fprintf(rpt, "fast-import crash report:\n");
>  	fprintf(rpt, "    fast-import process: %"PRIuMAX"\n", (uintmax_t) getpid());
>  	fprintf(rpt, "    parent process     : %"PRIuMAX"\n", (uintmax_t) getppid());
> -	fprintf(rpt, "    at %s\n", show_date(time(NULL), 0, DATE_MODE(LOCAL)));
> +	fprintf(rpt, "    at %s\n", show_date(time(NULL), 0, &dm));
>  	fputc('\n', rpt);
>  
>  	fputs("fatal: ", rpt);

I also considered just switching this hunk to another format. I doubt
that anybody cares what format the fast-import crash-report timestamp is
in. And in fact LOCAL is kind of a bad choice. Using the user's timezone
is fine, but _omitting_ the timezone in a crash report seems like a
recipe for confusion. Probably iso8601-local would be saner.

-Peff