Re: [RFC] Putting the date back into utsname::version
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 06:07:26PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ben Hutchings <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Here are examples of the old, new and possible alternative formats using
> > likely maximum-length components:
> > old: #1 SMP PREEMPT RT Tue Mar 21 23:12:08 GMT 2023 
> > new: #1 SMP PREEMPT RT Debian 9.99~rc99-9~experimental.9 
> > alt: #1 SMP PREEMPT RT 2023-02-21 Debian 9.99~rc99-9~experimental.9 
> > alt: #1 SMP PREEMPT RT Debian 9.99~rc99-9~experimental.9 (2023-02-21) 
> > We could perhaps shorten 'experimental' to 'exp', which would leave
> > stable security updates with the longest version strings and allow for:
> > alt: #1 SMP PREEMPT RT Tue Mar 21 2023 Debian 9.99.99-9codename9 
> > alt: #1 SMP PREEMPT RT Debian 9.99.99-9codename9 (Tue Mar 21 2023) 
> > Would anyone like to argue in favour of any particular alternative?
> I will at least make a plea for ISO dates rather than the specific date
> format in the last two examples.
> I think my favorite is the last example, with an ISO date (2023-03-21).
> Shortening experimental to exp seems like a good idea anyway.
ISO dates are certainly the best. Who really cares that it was a tuesday,
and especially since Tue is english, not universal. Never mind that
Mar is also a language problem.