Re: [RFC] Putting the date back into utsname::version

2013-03-22 Thread Lennart Sorensen
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 06:07:26PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Ben Hutchings writes: > > > Here are examples of the old, new and possible alternative formats using > > likely maximum-length components: > > > old: #1 SMP PREEMPT RT Tue Mar 21 23:12:08 GMT 2023 [46] > > new: #1

Re: [RFC] Putting the date back into utsname::version

2013-03-22 Thread Lennart Sorensen
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 01:20:01AM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > Another alternative, not represented, is epoch seconds. Takes as > many 7-bit printable characters to display (at least for the next > few hundred years) as an ISO-8601 date with separators but provides > much greater precision... an

Re: [RFC] Putting the date back into utsname::version

2013-03-21 Thread Jeremy Stanley
On 2013-03-21 18:07:26 -0700 (-0700), Russ Allbery wrote: > I will at least make a plea for ISO dates rather than the specific date > format in the last two examples. > > I think my favorite is the last example, with an ISO date (2023-03-21). [...] Another alternative, not represented, is epoch s

Re: [RFC] Putting the date back into utsname::version

2013-03-21 Thread Russ Allbery
Ben Hutchings writes: > Here are examples of the old, new and possible alternative formats using > likely maximum-length components: > old: #1 SMP PREEMPT RT Tue Mar 21 23:12:08 GMT 2023 [46] > new: #1 SMP PREEMPT RT Debian 9.99~rc99-9~experimental.9 [51] > alt: #