bug-cvs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

cvs 1.12.9 not handling time zones properly?


From: Chris Bohn
Subject: cvs 1.12.9 not handling time zones properly?
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 17:03:28 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040616

The company I work for is finally moving from cvs 1.10 to 1.12.9. Just today, I noticed that with 1.10, when I get cvs files (using the rsh method of connecting to the server), a file with the time 15:38 has its cvs\entries time listed as 19:38. When I switch to the new cvs and change it to use the pserver method (1.12.9 client won't connect using the rsh method to a cvs 1.10 or 1.12.9 server), a cvs ci shows all files being different. A cvs status on the same file and then looking at the cvs\entries for it again shows the time now at 18:38 (and then cvs ci doesn't think it has changed). I've tested against the 1.10 server and 1.12.9 server, and both result in the same thing. To summarize:

file:    15:38
1.10:    19:38 (cvs\entries)
1.12.9:  18:38 (cvs\entries)


The server is running on freebsd, and the client is running on Windows XP. I pulled the pre-built binaries for 1.12.9 off the cvs site (I didn't do that build myself). I'm in VA, so I'm EST5EDT timezone-wise. I think that means I'm -4 from GMT now, and once off DST, I'd be -5 from GMT. If the file is 15:38, that means the old cvs is reporting -4 GMT (sounds correct), and the new cvs is reporting -3 GMT (sounds wrong).

Just using the new cvs client with pserver mode (not converting anything existing) results in the same problem. If I run the cvs 1.12.9 client on the freebsd box, it gets the time as 19:38, which seems correct, so I think this is a Windows only problem.

I've verified the time on the client and server are correct, and so are the timezone settings. The TZ environment variable is not set either.

Anyone know why this is happening? It sounds like a bug, but since it used to work, it seems strange that it was recently introduced and not noticed.

thanks
Chris


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]