On 27/04/11 16:47, J.T. Conklin wrote:
> First some background.
>
> The continuous integration build framework I maintain at work uses
> timestamp files for "last_build", "last_success", etc. The contents
> of each file is the timestamp in ISO 8601 format (the inode mtime is
> set to the same v
Jim Meyering writes:
>> I'm interested in comments on both the idea of supporting such time
>> formats, and whether there is a better implementation.
>
> Thank you! This patch looks fine.
>
> As Paul mentioned, a complete change would be welcome,
> if you can fill out paperwork. Considering that
J.T. Conklin wrote:
> First some background.
>
> The continuous integration build framework I maintain at work uses
> timestamp files for "last_build", "last_success", etc. The contents
> of each file is the timestamp in ISO 8601 format (the inode mtime is
> set to the same value, but thats beside
On 04/27/11 08:47, J.T. Conklin wrote:
> I'm interested in comments on both the idea of supporting such time
> formats, and whether there is a better implementation.
Thanks. I like the idea of supporting these formats, and know of
no better implementation. But we'd need to change
parse-datetime.
First some background.
The continuous integration build framework I maintain at work uses
timestamp files for "last_build", "last_success", etc. The contents
of each file is the timestamp in ISO 8601 format (the inode mtime is
set to the same value, but thats besides the point).
I used this fo
