Hi Paul,
Ping. Could you please have a look at this? We have some nasty bugs in
shadow, and are yet undecided on how to fix them.
On Thu, Aug 01, 2024 at 01:46:40PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2024 at 01:43:36PM GMT, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > I like this approach the mo
https://legiscan.com/ND/text/HB1259/2025
HB 1259 passed the North Dakota House last week. No idea on whether it will
pass the ND Senate or be signed into law.
The tricky thing about this bill is that it does not have an implementation
time frame. Theoretically if it moves through in the next w
A bill has also been introduced in Maryland; links to text and status
below. Past efforts have died in committee in Maryland.
An obnoxious (from a time zone maintenance point of view): "If the
Department of Legislative Services receives notice of the change to 15
U.S.C. § 260a on or before Decembe
On 2025-02-11 07:57, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
$ date --date='2023-09-20[+0200]'
date: invalid date ‘2023-09-20[+0200]’
Does this kind of date-with-timezone look good to you?
Would you add support for it in GNU date(1) (via gnulib)?
I don't know, it looks a little weird to me. W
Hi Alex,
Use "T0" or " 0" zone offset prefix to make it work:
$ date -d2023-09-20T0+0200
2023 Sep 19 Tue 16:00:00
$ date -d2023-09-20\ 0+0200
2023 Sep 19 Tue 16:00:00
or maybe add [ T]12:00 to make it less ambiguous when dealing only with dates?
I agree that dat
On 2/11/25 07:38, Arthur Olson via tz wrote:
A bill has also been introduced in Maryland
Similar efforts are present in Utah[1], North Carolina[2], and Maine[3]
(for permanent standard time) and in Nebraska[4] (one bill for permanent
standard time, one for permanent DST). Most likely there ar
