My primary concern wasn't the format, it was the location of the date call. So instead of asking you to use BUILD_DATE, maybe I should have said "Should we use a value that is set once, rather than per-call to this function?"
That said, I'm now fuzzy, and would need to go back and look at how this is called to see when the value changes. --Mark On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 10:44:17AM -0800, Mike Kupfer wrote: > >>>>> Mike Kupfer writes: > > >>>>> Mark J Nelson writes: > > Mark> usr/src/tools/scripts/nightly.sh > Mark> 81 Should this use $BUILD_DATE? > > Mike> Yes, that seems cleaner. > > Oops, I'm afraid I didn't look closely at the format used for > BUILD_DATE. It uses the English 3-letter abbreviation for the month, so > we end up with file names that look like > > on-crypto-2010-Jan-12-nd.i386.tar.bz2 > > I'd rather use all numbers for the date. First, it'll mean that sorting > by file name also gives you sorting by date. Second, I think it's > friendlier for people whose native language is other than English. > > I have a mild preference for > > on-crypto-20100112-nd.i386.tar.bz2 > > because it's more compact. But it's harder visually to parse, so I'm > okay with > > on-crypto-2010-01-12-nd.i386.tar.bz2 > > mike > _______________________________________________ > on-ips-dev mailing list > on-ips-...@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/on-ips-dev _______________________________________________ tools-discuss mailing list tools-discuss@opensolaris.org
