Re: [PATCH 4/5] date: document and test "raw-local" mode

2016-07-11 Thread Jeff King
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 12:50:00PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 01:06:17AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > > > The documentation claims that "raw-local" does not work. It > > does, but the end result is rather subtle. Let's describe it > > in better detail, and test to make s

Re: [PATCH 4/5] date: document and test "raw-local" mode

2016-07-11 Thread Theodore Ts'o
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 01:06:17AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > The documentation claims that "raw-local" does not work. It > does, but the end result is rather subtle. Let's describe it > in better detail, and test to make sure it works (namely, > the epoch time doesn't change, but the zone does).

[PATCH 4/5] date: document and test "raw-local" mode

2016-07-10 Thread Jeff King
The "raw" format shows a Unix epoch timestamp, but with a timezone tacked on. The timestamp is not _in_ that zone, but it is extra information about the time (by default, the zone the author was in). The documentation claims that "raw-local" does not work. It does, but the end result is rather sub