[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: s/GMT/UTC/
From: |
Adrian Irving-Beer |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: s/GMT/UTC/ |
Date: |
Thu, 9 Sep 2004 14:14:22 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.6+20040818i |
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 10:18:48AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> [Did somebody really suggest this header is "nearly worthless and
> should be removed altogether"? Have they actually ever used
> arch?!?]
Or *any* revision control system?
Dates are just rough ideas of when changes were implemented. Two years
later, I can look back and say 'that project lasted from September
2003 to April 2004'; leap seconds aren't exactly my top priority at
that point.
The only time it would really matter would be with CVS -- and only
because CVS didn't have atomic commits or automatic full-tree
versions. As an informational tool, I think the date is pretty
ubiquitous across RCSes. They are, after all, supposed to track
changes over time. :)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] s/GMT/UTC/, (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] s/GMT/UTC/, Jeremy Shaw, 2004/09/07
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] s/GMT/UTC/, Jan Hudec, 2004/09/07
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: s/GMT/UTC/, Miles Bader, 2004/09/07
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: s/GMT/UTC/, Jeremy Shaw, 2004/09/09
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: s/GMT/UTC/, Tom Lord, 2004/09/09
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: s/GMT/UTC/,
Adrian Irving-Beer <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: s/GMT/UTC/, Matthieu Moy, 2004/09/09
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: s/GMT/UTC/, Phil Frost, 2004/09/09
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: s/GMT/UTC/, Miles Bader, 2004/09/09
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: s/GMT/UTC/, David Allouche, 2004/09/10
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: s/GMT/UTC/, Zenaan Harkness, 2004/09/10
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: s/GMT/UTC/, Adrian Irving-Beer, 2004/09/10