In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Poul-Henning Kamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rob Seaman writes:
: >On Jan 13, 2006, at 6:26 AM, Richard Langley wrote:
:
: >I won't claim to know the intrinsic importance attached to this.
: >Critical systems may depend on the information. But is it fair to
: >sum up the situation by saying that a leap second triggered a couple
: >of bugs (or perhaps one common bug), they were detected, have been
: >fixed, and affected data products have been remediated? Also, it
: >appears that some other data products were unaffected?
: >
: >So, the issue has been resolved - would likely have been resolved
: >sooner if a leap second had occurred earlier - and is no longer
: >directly pertinent to a discussion of future leap seconds?
:
: Yeah, right
:
: "This goes counter to my claims so it is of no importance".
:
: Sorry, things don't work that way Rob.
This time, there were no reports of death with the leap second,
therefore they can't be too bad... :-)
Warner
