Re: [PATCH] strbuf_addftime(): handle "%s" manually
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Nov 4, 2021, 02:11 UTC
- Message-ID
- <YYNBOp4QDwG9ctHE@coredump.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqtugt56i7.fsf@gitster.g>
On Wed, Nov 03, 2021 at 01:28:00PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 18 quoted lines
> I think this also needs squashing in? > > Documentation/rev-list-options.txt | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git c/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt w/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt > index 24569b06d1..43a86fa562 100644 > --- c/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt > +++ w/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt > @@ -1047,7 +1047,7 @@ omitted. > has no effect. > > `--date=format:...` feeds the format `...` to your system `strftime`, > -except for %z and %Z, which are handled internally. > +except for %s, %z, and %Z, which are handled internally. > Use `--date=format:%c` to show the date in your system locale's > preferred format. See the `strftime` manual for a complete list of > format placeholders. When using `-local`, the correct syntax is
Ah, thanks. I didn't even think to look in the documentation, because I didn't imagine that we would expose these implementation details. But since we do mention %z there, I think adding %s makes sense.
BTW, I also noticed that stftime supports some locale modifiers. So "%Es" ends up printing the epoch seconds, but eludes our manual intervention (and so does the old, wrong thing). I'm fine with stopping here, though. There's no reason to use %Es over %s (from what I gather, the %E is about handling year eras for locales that support them, but that's meaningless for an epoch time), and I'm not sure it is even a portable thing (glibc does not mention it in the manpage along with other %E values, but it does work; POSIX does not even define %s, so of course does not mention %Es).
-Peff