On Sat, Apr 02, 2011 at 02:23:31PM +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote: > Why not use the Debian standard?? > Reasoning - it's already been extensively debated *and* voted on, it's a > system already in place, it's the "Debian" way. > > (Is there more than one (Debian standard)?) > > >From :- > http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-dpkgchangelog > > The date has the following format[17] (compatible and with the same > semantics of RFC 2822 and RFC 5322): > > day-of-week, dd month yyyy hh:mm:ss +zzzz
I'm not the one who typed the initial date of "04/01/11". Had the Debian standard of "Fri, 01 Apr 2011 00:00:00 -0700" been used, there would have been no ambiguity, now would there? Further, why do all that typing on a mailing list thread, when "2011-04-01" is, oh I don't know, _one_ _third_ the length, and still retains unambiguity? Heh. You can do things the short way or the long way. I'll take the short way. -- . o . o . o . . o o . . . o . . . o . o o o . o . o o . . o o o o . o . . o o o o . o o o
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
