On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:10:25AM +0400, Antony Pavlov wrote: > On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 08:41:06 +0200 > Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 09:55:22AM +0400, Antony Pavlov wrote: > > > On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 21:02:22 +0200 > > > Holger Schurig <holgerschurig@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > I'd prefer a more logical format (and that is also in the help). > > > > However, in this case I wouldn't name the command "hwclock", but maybe > > > > "setclock". > > > > > > hwclock allows to use a logical format! > > > > > > e.g. here is a quote from hwclock manpage: > > > > > > --date=date_string > > > You need this option if you specify the --set or --predict functions, otherwise > > > it is ignored. It specifies the time to which to set the Hardware Clock, or the > > > time for which to predict the Hardware Clock reading. The value of this option > > > is an argument to the date(1) program. For example: > > > > > > hwclock --set --date="2011-08-14 16:45:05" > > > > Is this format easy enough to parse? If yes, that sounds like a good > > format. > > So you have no objections on using a logical format :) No, not at all ;) > > I can make a small review on conventional date_string formats so we can discuss most appropriate one. Nice, thanks. I think we can always add additional formats using different command line switches, but the better we chose our default format the lesser need we'll have to add additional formats. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
