[gentoo-dev] RFC: isodate for packages.mask starting on 2019-07-01

[gentoo-dev] RFC: isodate for packages.mask starting on 2019-07-01

[Jonas Stein]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1782 bytes --]

Dear all,

Situation:
We have different date formats in packages.mask.


Change:
I suggest that we start using the date format yyyy-mm-dd
for all dates in packages.mask
starting with 2019-07-01

The following changes in packages.mask will introduce the date format,
specify the timezone, and use Larry as example user.

3,6c3,6
< # When you add an entry to the top of this file, add your name, the
date, and
< # an explanation of why something is getting masked. Please be extremely
< # careful not to commit atoms that are not valid, as it can cause
large-scale
< # breakage, especially if it ends up in the daily snapshot.
---
> # When you add an entry to the top of this file, add your name, the date
> # in the UTC timezone, and an explanation of why something is getting
masked.
> # Please be extremely careful not to commit atoms that are not valid,
as it can
> # cause large-scale breakage, especially if it ends up in the daily
snapshot.
10c10
< ## # Dev E. Loper <developer@gentoo.org> (28 Jun 2012)
---
> ## # Larry the cow <larry@gentoo.org> (2019-07-01)
24,26c24,26
< ## # Dev E. Loper <developer@gentoo.org> (23 May 2015)
< ## # Masked for removal in 30 days.  Doesn't work
< ## # with new libfoo. Upstream dead, gtk-1, smells
---
> ## # Larry the cow <larry@gentoo.org> (2019-07-01)
> ## # Masked for removal after 2019-08-01.
> ## # Doesn't work with new libfoo. Upstream dead, gtk-1, smells


Reason:
* Larry is the Gentoo Example
* 2019-01-01 + 30 days is unclear, if we do not use UTC time
* The new date format is easy to read and write and easy to parse
internationally.

Do you have any objections?


By the way, you can get a formatted string of now in UTC with:
date -u +"%Y-%m-%d"

-- 
Best,
Jonas


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 636 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: isodate for packages.mask starting on 2019-07-01

[Fabian Groffen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2462 bytes --]

I think ISO 8601 date format is an improvement.

However, as you're suggesting to use a date at UTC time, this begs for
scripting, such as the old echangelog did.  Then, when scripted, the
actual date format is no longer an issue.  Somehow the current format
looks easier to read (for humans) to me, so no real need to change if
there was a script to just add/remove/update entries.  (And commit
without forgetting to add --signoff.)

Fabian

On 29-06-2019 13:23:10 +0200, Jonas Stein wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> Situation:
> We have different date formats in packages.mask.
> 
> 
> Change:
> I suggest that we start using the date format yyyy-mm-dd
> for all dates in packages.mask
> starting with 2019-07-01
> 
> The following changes in packages.mask will introduce the date format,
> specify the timezone, and use Larry as example user.
> 
> 3,6c3,6
> < # When you add an entry to the top of this file, add your name, the
> date, and
> < # an explanation of why something is getting masked. Please be extremely
> < # careful not to commit atoms that are not valid, as it can cause
> large-scale
> < # breakage, especially if it ends up in the daily snapshot.
> ---
> > # When you add an entry to the top of this file, add your name, the date
> > # in the UTC timezone, and an explanation of why something is getting
> masked.
> > # Please be extremely careful not to commit atoms that are not valid,
> as it can
> > # cause large-scale breakage, especially if it ends up in the daily
> snapshot.
> 10c10
> < ## # Dev E. Loper <developer@gentoo.org> (28 Jun 2012)
> ---
> > ## # Larry the cow <larry@gentoo.org> (2019-07-01)
> 24,26c24,26
> < ## # Dev E. Loper <developer@gentoo.org> (23 May 2015)
> < ## # Masked for removal in 30 days.  Doesn't work
> < ## # with new libfoo. Upstream dead, gtk-1, smells
> ---
> > ## # Larry the cow <larry@gentoo.org> (2019-07-01)
> > ## # Masked for removal after 2019-08-01.
> > ## # Doesn't work with new libfoo. Upstream dead, gtk-1, smells
> 
> 
> Reason:
> * Larry is the Gentoo Example
> * 2019-01-01 + 30 days is unclear, if we do not use UTC time
> * The new date format is easy to read and write and easy to parse
> internationally.
> 
> Do you have any objections?
> 
> 
> By the way, you can get a formatted string of now in UTC with:
> date -u +"%Y-%m-%d"
> 
> -- 
> Best,
> Jonas
> 




-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: isodate for packages.mask starting on 2019-07-01

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2523 bytes --]

On Sat, 2019-06-29 at 13:23 +0200, Jonas Stein wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> Situation:
> We have different date formats in packages.mask.
> 
> 
> Change:
> I suggest that we start using the date format yyyy-mm-dd
> for all dates in packages.mask
> starting with 2019-07-01
> 
> The following changes in packages.mask will introduce the date format,
> specify the timezone, and use Larry as example user.
> 
> 3,6c3,6
> < # When you add an entry to the top of this file, add your name, the
> date, and
> < # an explanation of why something is getting masked. Please be extremely
> < # careful not to commit atoms that are not valid, as it can cause
> large-scale
> < # breakage, especially if it ends up in the daily snapshot.
> ---
> > # When you add an entry to the top of this file, add your name, the date
> > # in the UTC timezone, and an explanation of why something is getting
> masked.
> > # Please be extremely careful not to commit atoms that are not valid,
> as it can
> > # cause large-scale breakage, especially if it ends up in the daily
> snapshot.
> 10c10
> < ## # Dev E. Loper <developer@gentoo.org> (28 Jun 2012)
> ---
> > ## # Larry the cow <larry@gentoo.org> (2019-07-01)
> 24,26c24,26
> < ## # Dev E. Loper <developer@gentoo.org> (23 May 2015)
> < ## # Masked for removal in 30 days.  Doesn't work
> < ## # with new libfoo. Upstream dead, gtk-1, smells
> ---
> > ## # Larry the cow <larry@gentoo.org> (2019-07-01)
> > ## # Masked for removal after 2019-08-01.
> > ## # Doesn't work with new libfoo. Upstream dead, gtk-1, smells
> 
> Reason:
> * Larry is the Gentoo Example

This is not a problem at the moment but I suppose we might have a future
developer called 'larry'.  It would be silly to block someone from using
that nickname.  OTOH, 'developer' is rather clearly a replace-me.  You
could also use example@.

> * 2019-01-01 + 30 days is unclear, if we do not use UTC time

I don't see how '30 days' vs absolute date makes any difference
regarding 'UTC time'.  Sure, some people take it as literal 30 days,
some take it as 'month + 1' but that's not a major problem.

That said, I agree with the change, just not with the justification.

> * The new date format is easy to read and write and easy to parse
> internationally.

Sure, ISO 8601 for dates is good.

> 
> Do you have any objections?
> 
> 
> By the way, you can get a formatted string of now in UTC with:
> date -u +"%Y-%m-%d"
> 

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 618 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: isodate for packages.mask starting on 2019-07-01

[Benda Xu]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 340 bytes --]

Hi Jonas,

Jonas Stein <jstein@gentoo.org> writes:

> Dear all,
>
> Situation:
> We have different date formats in packages.mask.
>
> Change:
> I suggest that we start using the date format yyyy-mm-dd
> for all dates in packages.mask
> starting with 2019-07-01

For me isodate is more readable.  I would vote for this change.

Yours,
Benda

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: isodate for packages.mask starting on 2019-07-01

[Jonas Stein]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 855 bytes --]

Hi Michał,

I see your argument with "Larry" as bad example user.
I will not touch it for now.
But we should think about it some day later because we have Larry as
example user in many places already. I will put this in another RFC.

>> * 2019-01-01 + 30 days is unclear, if we do not use UTC time
> I don't see how '30 days' vs absolute date makes any difference
> regarding 'UTC time'.  Sure, some people take it as literal 30 days,
> some take it as 'month + 1' but that's not a major problem.

OK I did not express myself well.
"2019-01-01 + 30 days" was just one example. In this worst case the
different time zones could add up to nearly 2 days.
I do not think that this is critical, but while at it we can fix it for
free.

> That said, I agree with the change, just not with the justification.

Great.

-- 
Best,
Jonas


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 636 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: isodate for packages.mask starting on 2019-07-01

[Jonas Stein]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 302 bytes --]

Hi Fabian,

> I think ISO 8601 date format is an improvement.

Great.

> However, as you're suggesting to use a date at UTC time, this begs for
> scripting, such as the old echangelog did.  

Absolutely but this is a more complicate step, I want to discuss this later.

-- 
Best,
Jonas


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 636 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: isodate for packages.mask starting on 2019-07-01

[Jonas Stein]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 710 bytes --]

Hi Benda,

thank you for your quick response.

>> Change:
>> I suggest that we start using the date format yyyy-mm-dd
>> for all dates in packages.mask
>> starting with 2019-07-01
> 
> For me isodate is more readable.  I would vote for this change.

Great.

I know, that some people prefer their local date format
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_format_by_country) most.
But in an international project it we need a standard which does not
lead to misunderstandings and is easy to use.
I think all developers on the world interpret 2019-07-01 the same way
and are familiar with this format. If it is not their favorite format
yet, it is their second best choice.

-- 
Best,
Jonas


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 636 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: isodate for packages.mask starting on 2019-07-01

[Jonas Stein]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 359 bytes --]

Dear all,

> [..]
> Change:
> I suggest that we start using the date format yyyy-mm-dd
> for all dates in package.mask
> starting with 2019-07-01
> [..]

Thank you for your quick responses.
package.mask uses now ISO 8601 dates.

https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=c621d104eb258b5fc4b05dfb9940bc26cab7f959

-- 
Best,
Jonas


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 636 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: isodate for packages.mask starting on 2019-07-01

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 598 bytes --]

On Mon, 2019-07-01 at 02:29 +0200, Jonas Stein wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> > [..]
> > Change:
> > I suggest that we start using the date format yyyy-mm-dd
> > for all dates in package.mask
> > starting with 2019-07-01
> > [..]
> 
> Thank you for your quick responses.
> package.mask uses now ISO 8601 dates.
> 
> https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=c621d104eb258b5fc4b05dfb9940bc26cab7f959
> 

Could you also look into converting other profile files?  They were
known to have even less consistency than top-level package.mask.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 618 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: isodate for packages.mask starting on 2019-07-01

[Jonas Stein]

On 01/07/2019 09.30, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-07-01 at 02:29 +0200, Jonas Stein wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>>> [..]
>>> Change:
>>> I suggest that we start using the date format yyyy-mm-dd
>>> for all dates in package.mask
>>> starting with 2019-07-01
>>> [..]
>>
>> Thank you for your quick responses.
>> package.mask uses now ISO 8601 dates.
>>
>> https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=c621d104eb258b5fc4b05dfb9940bc26cab7f959
>>
> 
> Could you also look into converting other profile files?  They were
> known to have even less consistency than top-level package.mask.

Good point. I will have a look at it.
It will take some time, because the date formats there are mixed a lot
and we cannot convert it blind with a script.

-- 
Best,
Jonas

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: isodate for packages.mask starting on 2019-07-01

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 783 bytes --]

>>>>> On Tue, 02 Jul 2019, Jonas Stein wrote:

>> Could you also look into converting other profile files?  They were
>> known to have even less consistency than top-level package.mask.

> Good point. I will have a look at it.
> It will take some time, because the date formats there are mixed a lot
> and we cannot convert it blind with a script.

Indeed, it was quite a mess and required manual fixing after running
the script [1]. A few examples:

   23/Nov/2018
   05 March 2019
   15 Nove 2012
   05. Mar 2012
   14 Jan, 2015
   Jan 26, 2019
   Feb 16th 2007
   2011/07/01
   20061112

Also, some devs have visited us from the future: :-)

   21 Aug 2107
   18 Mar 20180

Ulrich

[1] https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=abc0ab8c49ce257499f1b0d2defda707d2f0ae72

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: isodate for packages.mask starting on 2019-07-01

[Kent Fredric]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 196 bytes --]

On Sat, 29 Jun 2019 13:23:10 +0200
Jonas Stein <jstein@gentoo.org> wrote:

> By the way, you can get a formatted string of now in UTC with:
> date -u +"%Y-%m-%d"

Or just:

  date -uI 


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]