On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 11:58 +0200, Eddy Petrișor wrote: > > I understand the interest in the amount of time a given job takes to > > run, but I guess I don't understand the need for a "start time > offset" > > at all. Isn't it sufficient to record the start time of a job, then > > when it's complete show the elapsed time for that job? Or recipe? > Or > > both? > > The resulted information when using absolute time stamps is almost > meaningless until they are further processed in an external tool > because is hard to identify with a glance which job finished last, > which first and so on. > > If a relative time stamp is provided one can waste less time on the > analysis when some target is clearly the wasteful one. Also the > relative time stamps generate very readable graphs directly after > insertion in a tool such as Oocalc, Gnumeric or Excel. With absolute > time stamps the very first thing I found myself doing was to generate > relative time stamps.
Sorry, I was not clear: I wasn't suggesting that it would be better to display the absolute time for the start time. I was wondering why we display the start time at all. Why not just show the elapsed time, and nothing else? That would avoid all of these issues. However Tim makes a reasonable point in his response so if it can be done without too much difficulty it would be good to show a relative start time. _______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
