fine.
Ted Unangst wrote:
> Scott Cheloha wrote:
> > > 1) it isn't documented that + can take a smaller number
> > > 2) it will be hard to train people to use +0001
> >
> > These are my concerns as well.
> >
> > An idea I had a while back was to drop support for +hhmm and just
> > support
Scott Cheloha wrote:
> > 1) it isn't documented that + can take a smaller number
> > 2) it will be hard to train people to use +0001
>
> These are my concerns as well.
>
> An idea I had a while back was to drop support for +hhmm and just
> support +minutes, like we do with shutdown(8). The
Scott Cheloha wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 07:23:43PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > I suspect this breaks an usage case which is not documented.
> >
> > People may be doing leave +1 to mean "1 minutes".
> >
> > % leave +1
> > Alarm set for Tue Jan 21 19:23. (pid 55602)
> > % date
> > Tue
Scott Cheloha wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 07:23:43PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > I suspect this breaks an usage case which is not documented.
> >
> > People may be doing leave +1 to mean "1 minutes".
> >
> > % leave +1
> > Alarm set for Tue Jan 21 19:23. (pid 55602)
> > % date
> > Tue
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 07:23:43PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> I suspect this breaks an usage case which is not documented.
>
> People may be doing leave +1 to mean "1 minutes".
>
> % leave +1
> Alarm set for Tue Jan 21 19:23. (pid 55602)
> % date
> Tue Jan 21 19:22:32 MST 2020
> % Just one
I suspect this breaks an usage case which is not documented.
People may be doing leave +1 to mean "1 minutes".
% leave +1
Alarm set for Tue Jan 21 19:23. (pid 55602)
% date
Tue Jan 21 19:22:32 MST 2020
% Just one more minute!
1) it isn't documented that + can take a smaller number
2) it will be
In testing leave, I found it accepts "12" and will alarm at 00:12, which is
probably not desirable. this check thats the specified time has 4 digits so
that the hour/minute math works properly.
Index: leave.c
===
RCS file:
