Am 23.06.2017 um 17:23 schrieb Jeff King:
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 05:13:38PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
The idea was that eventually the caller might be able to come up with a
TZ that is not blank, but is also not what strftime("%Z") would produce.
Conceivably that could be done if Git commits carried the "%Z"
information (not likely), or if we used a reverse-lookup table (also not
likely).
This closes the door on that. Since we don't have immediate plans to go
that route, I'm OK with this patch. It would be easy enough to re-open
the door if we change our minds later.
Closes the door on doing that via passing the char * of the prepared
custom tz_name to strbuf_addftime().
I have a WIP patch (which may not make it on-list, depending) playing
with the idea I proposed in
CACBZZX5OQc45fUyDVayE89rkT=+8m5S4efSXCAbCy7Upme5zLA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx which
just inserts the custom TZ name based on the offset inside that `if
(omit_strftime_tz_name)` branch.
OK. I'd assumed that would all happen outside of strbuf_addftime(). But
if it happens inside, then I agree a flag is better.
Oh, so the interface that was meant to allow better time zone names
without having to make strbuf_addftime() even bigger than it already is
turns out to be too ugly for its purpose? I'm sorry. :(
René
