On 06/06/15 16:39, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Freitag, 5. Juni 2015, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> My vote is for SOURCE_DATE_UTC, and i agree with Brendan that we should
>> take the opportunity to define this as strictly and narrowly as possible
>> (i.e. end in a 'Z', none of the other off
Hi,
On Freitag, 5. Juni 2015, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> My vote is for SOURCE_DATE_UTC, and i agree with Brendan that we should
> take the opportunity to define this as strictly and narrowly as possible
> (i.e. end in a 'Z', none of the other offsets), so that people relying
> on it know they'r
On Fri 2015-06-05 10:55:34 -0400, Brendan O'Dea wrote:
> Any of UTC_SOURCE_DATE, SOURCE_DATE_UTC
My vote is for SOURCE_DATE_UTC, and i agree with Brendan that we should
take the opportunity to define this as strictly and narrowly as possible
(i.e. end in a 'Z', none of the other offsets), so that
On 5 June 2015 at 21:12, Ximin Luo wrote:
> If we're going to mandate that it ends with Z, might I suggest that we add
> "UTC" or "_UTC" to the variable name? It leaves the option open in the future
> that we might allow TZ offsets.
>
> Note that the TZ offsets mentioned in ISO8601 and the other
