Andreas EricssonSigned-off-by: Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se>
---
.gitignore | 1 + 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
265df952d4c61f60eae42261aeea90e9b6d8e414
diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore index 1a9090b..4335061 100644 --- a/.gitignore +++ b/.gitignore @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ git-count-objects git-cvsexportcommit git-cvsimport git-daemon +git-describe git-diff git-diff-files git-diff-index
-- 1.0.7-gb38d1
git-format-patch Date header
git-format-patch uses "date '+%s %z'" format for the Date header. Sylpheed does not understand this format. How common this convention is? Should we change git-format-patch to use more standard date format?
OTOH, I like the %s format because it is so simple and easy to parse :)
-- http://onion.dynserv.net/~timo/
Andreas EricssonRe: git-format-patch Date header
Timo Hirvonen wrote:
> git-format-patch uses "date '+%s %z'" format for the Date header. > Sylpheed does not understand this format. How common this convention > is? Should we change git-format-patch to use more standard date format? > > OTOH, I like the %s format because it is so simple and easy to parse :) >
Actually, that's what's printed in the commit message, so any change would have to be put there and that would break backwards compatibility for new tools that might want to use it.
On an unrelated note, please don't start a new thread by replying to an old message. It's very confusing to follow and people may not see your message. This time it was doubly so because the next mail in my inbox is a patch for git-format-patch, to which I thought you replied.
-- Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se OP5 AB www.op5.se Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231
Re: git-format-patch Date header
On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 16:21:13 +0100 Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se> wrote:
> Timo Hirvonen wrote: > > git-format-patch uses "date '+%s %z'" format for the Date header. > > Sylpheed does not understand this format. How common this convention > > is? Should we change git-format-patch to use more standard date format? > > > > OTOH, I like the %s format because it is so simple and easy to parse :) > > > > Actually, that's what's printed in the commit message, so any change > would have to be put there and that would break backwards compatibility > for new tools that might want to use it.
So fixing Sylpheed (and maybe other email clients too) is the right solution...
> On an unrelated note, please don't start a new thread by replying to an > old message. It's very confusing to follow and people may not see your > message. This time it was doubly so because the next mail in my inbox is > a patch for git-format-patch, to which I thought you replied.
Sorry. I replied to your message because it was the message having Date header in the "%s %z" format.
-- http://onion.dynserv.net/~timo/
Andreas EricssonRe: git-format-patch Date header
Timo Hirvonen wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 16:21:13 +0100 > Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se> wrote: > > >>Timo Hirvonen wrote: >> >>>git-format-patch uses "date '+%s %z'" format for the Date header. >>>Sylpheed does not understand this format. How common this convention >>>is? Should we change git-format-patch to use more standard date format? >>> >>>OTOH, I like the %s format because it is so simple and easy to parse :) >>> >> >>Actually, that's what's printed in the commit message, so any change >>would have to be put there and that would break backwards compatibility >>for new tools that might want to use it. > > > So fixing Sylpheed (and maybe other email clients too) is the right > solution... >
Nopes. In this case fixing my home-hacked git-send-patch script is the right thing to do. git-format-patch has always printed that format, though, so the error lies with me and the patch I sent. I shall have to re-visit it after reading rfc 822 a bit more closely.
> >>On an unrelated note, please don't start a new thread by replying to an >>old message. It's very confusing to follow and people may not see your >>message. This time it was doubly so because the next mail in my inbox is >>a patch for git-format-patch, to which I thought you replied. > > > Sorry. I replied to your message because it was the message having Date > header in the "%s %z" format. >
I just noticed. Thanks, and sorry.
-- Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se OP5 AB www.op5.se Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231
Re: git-format-patch Date header
Andreas Ericsson wrote:
> > Nopes. In this case fixing my home-hacked git-send-patch script is the > right thing to do. git-format-patch has always printed that format, > though, so the error lies with me and the patch I sent. I shall have to > re-visit it after reading rfc 822 a bit more closely. >
RFC 2822, please.
-hpa
Andreas EricssonRe: git-format-patch Date header
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Andreas Ericsson wrote: > >> >> Nopes. In this case fixing my home-hacked git-send-patch script is the >> right thing to do. git-format-patch has always printed that format, >> though, so the error lies with me and the patch I sent. I shall have >> to re-visit it after reading rfc 822 a bit more closely. >> > > RFC 2822, please. >
Right you are.
-- Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se OP5 AB www.op5.se Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231
Linus TorvaldsRe: git-format-patch Date header
On Sun, 8 Jan 2006, Andreas Ericsson wrote:
> > Actually, that's what's printed in the commit message, so any change > would have to be put there and that would break backwards compatibility > for new tools that might want to use it.
No, git should always take the date in any of a million different formats, and always turn it into "seconds + timezone" internally.
The fact that git-format-patch also prints it out in the internal format is unambiguous (nice) but human-unreadable (bad).
There are other unambiguous formats it could use, notably standard rfc2822 format ("date -R").
The git "show_date()" function hopefully does exactly that rfc2822 format, but you'd have to make a helper program to do the conversion in git-format-patch.sh.
Linus