From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] date: make "local" orthogonal to date format Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 18:25:29 -0400 Message-ID: <20150901222529.GC7862@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20150901083731.GE30659@serenity.lan> <35b1313d4eb084ddc2bd70510d56e11a1d84e993.1441144343.git.john@keeping.me.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: John Keeping , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Sep 02 00:25:37 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZWtzj-00083U-Sh for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Sep 2015 00:25:36 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752308AbbIAWZc (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Sep 2015 18:25:32 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:53381 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751147AbbIAWZc (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Sep 2015 18:25:32 -0400 Received: (qmail 30671 invoked by uid 102); 1 Sep 2015 22:25:32 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.1) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 01 Sep 2015 17:25:32 -0500 Received: (qmail 6586 invoked by uid 107); 1 Sep 2015 22:25:35 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 01 Sep 2015 18:25:35 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 01 Sep 2015 18:25:29 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 03:16:50PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > John Keeping writes: > > > This is Jeff's original patch with my fixup for DATE_STRFTIME squashed > > in and a new change to reject "raw-local" (in both Documentation/ and > > date.c). > > Even in --date=raw, we do show the timezone offset, so I do not > necessarily agree that raw-local is nonsensical. That's the only > difference between the one I queued yesterday and this one. Yeah, that's why I didn't change it in the original. But to be honest, I cannot imagine any case where that is _useful_, so I do not mind at all to declare it off-limits, even though it is not nonsensical (though it is a little strange to ask for "raw" data and then ask for it to be munged). IOW, I do not mind either way, but the fact that we have to _add_ code to disallow it makes me slightly in favor of allowing it. :) -Peff