bzr time format is not quite rfc2822

Bug #411777 reported by Martin Pool
8
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
Bazaar
Confirmed
Low
Unassigned
Breezy
Triaged
Medium
Unassigned

Bug Description

I was wondering if the bzr timestamp is actually RFC 2822 compliant? I'm not much of a proofreader, that's why I'm asking. :)

Here's the document: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2822.txt
date-time = [ day-of-week "," ] date FWS time [CFWS]

Example of bzr timestamp:
timestamp: Sat 2009-07-25 14:36:12 +0200

Shouldn't there be a comma after day-of-week?

Martin Pool (mbp)
Changed in bzr:
status: New → Confirmed
importance: Undecided → Low
Revision history for this message
Robert Collins (lifeless) wrote : Re: [Bug 411777] [NEW] bzr time format is not quite rfc2822

On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 05:39 +0000, Martin Pool wrote:
> Public bug reported:
>
> I was wondering if the bzr timestamp is actually RFC 2822 compliant? I'm
> not much of a proofreader, that's why I'm asking. :)
>
> Here's the document: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2822.txt
> date-time = [ day-of-week "," ] date FWS time [CFWS]
>
> Example of bzr timestamp:
> timestamp: Sat 2009-07-25 14:36:12 +0200
>
> Shouldn't there be a comma after day-of-week?

Yes, according to that BNF fragment.

We might want to consider switching to ISO8601, if we're going to change
how we datestamp things.

-Rob

Revision history for this message
Martin Ueding (martin-ueding) wrote :

ISO date would be nice indeed.

Jelmer Vernooij (jelmer)
tags: added: check-for-breezy
Jelmer Vernooij (jelmer)
tags: removed: check-for-breezy
Changed in brz:
status: New → Triaged
importance: Undecided → Medium
Jelmer Vernooij (jelmer)
tags: added: ui
Jelmer Vernooij (jelmer)
tags: removed: ui
To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Related questions

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.