John Keeping <j...@keeping.me.uk> writes: > On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 08:16:59AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes: >> >> > I guess "relative dates do not depend on timezones, so -local is >> > meaningless" would be the closest thing. > > The discussion about "raw-local" was in a separate subthread, I think > we're just bikeshedding the particular error message here.
OK. > OTOH, I don't think there's any disagreement about what "relative-local" > and "raw-local" would output were they supported, just whether they are > useful. There doesn't seem to be any harm in supporting them; > "relative-local" will be identical to "relative" and "raw-local" will > require preparatory code movement for the raw output. Sure. Bikeshedding further, while Peff's message "-local is meaningless" is a correct statement of the fact, I do not think it explains well why we chose to error out instead of giving the most natural result (i.e. exactly the same as 'relative'). Perhaps stating "relative-local is not supported" without saying why would be better. "Because it is meaningless, we refuse to support the option." is a very strong statement that tells aspiring future Git hackers not to attempt to add a support for it, which is probably a wrong message to send. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
