From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1739C636CC for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2023 02:15:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229599AbjBPCP5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Feb 2023 21:15:57 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:35808 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229489AbjBPCP4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Feb 2023 21:15:56 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net (cloud.peff.net [104.130.231.41]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D5882007D for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2023 18:15:55 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 19663 invoked by uid 109); 16 Feb 2023 02:15:55 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Feb 2023 02:15:55 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 21440 invoked by uid 111); 16 Feb 2023 02:15:54 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 15 Feb 2023 21:15:54 -0500 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2023 21:15:54 -0500 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Rafael Dulfer , Andrei Rybak , Rafael Dulfer , =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] rev-list: clarify git-log default date format Message-ID: References: <20230201155712.86577-1-rafael@dulfer.be> <230201.864js5q9sv.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 04:42:25PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > The documentation mistakenly said that the default format was > similar to RFC 2822 format and tried to specify it by enumerating > differences, which had two problems: > > * There are some more differences from the 2822 format that are not > mentioned; worse yet > > * The default format is not modeled after RFC 2822 format at all. > As can be seen in f80cd783 (date.c: add "show_date()" function., > 2005-05-06), it is a derivative of ctime(3) format. > > Stop saying that it is similar to RFC 2822, and rewrite the > description to explain the format without requiring the reader to > know any other format. > > Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano > --- > * The discussion stalled and the topic was left in limbo for a few > weeks. Let's attempt to reboot it instead of silently waiting > for a rerolled version from the original author. Thanks for keeping this moving. The proposed text looks great to me. -Peff