On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 12:50:00PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 01:06:17AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > > > The documentation claims that "raw-local" does not work. It > > does, but the end result is rather subtle. Let's describe it > > in better detail, and test to make sure it works (namely, > > the epoch time doesn't change, but the zone does). > > Maybe add an editorial statement that in most cases this isn't > particularly useful? Documenting raw-local implies that someone might > want to consider using it, and it's not clear to me folks should ever > try --- they're more likely to confuse themselves more than anything > else. I waffled on making such a statement. I agree it's unlikely to be that useful in practice. The most plausible scenario I could come up with is a program or script that asks for "--date=raw" because it's going to format the date later. Somebody using that program may prefer their local timestamps. Normally you'd just say "--date=iso-local" or whatever format you prefer, but because this is transiting through the other program which only understands --date=raw, you have to keep using that format. I hoped that the explanation I added would prevent confusion, or at least be an improvement over the existing documentation of "doesn't work". -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html