bzr time format is not quite rfc2822

Bug #411777 reported by Martin Pool on 2009-08-11
8
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
Bazaar
Low
Unassigned
Breezy
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) on 2009-08-11
Changed in bzr:
status: New → Confirmed
importance: Undecided → Low

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

Martin Ueding (martin-ueding) wrote :

ISO date would be nice indeed.

Jelmer Vernooij (jelmer) on 2017-11-09
tags: added: check-for-breezy
Jelmer Vernooij (jelmer) on 2019-01-13
tags: removed: check-for-breezy
Changed in brz:
status: New → Triaged
importance: Undecided → Medium
Jelmer Vernooij (jelmer) on 2019-01-13
tags: added: ui
Jelmer Vernooij (jelmer) on 2019-01-13
tags: removed: ui
To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  Edit
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Related questions