On 21/09/2023 23.48, Sam James wrote:
> Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> writes:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Sep 2023, Florian Schmaus wrote:
>>>> The first line of the "#"-prefixed explanation block must be of the
>>>> format "${AUTHOR_NAME} <${EMAIL}> (${SINGLE_DATE})" when the date is of
>>>> format YYYY-MM-DD, in UTC timezone.
>>>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>> Can we drop this? Or, at least, relax this.
>>
>> I think UTC makes a lot of sense in an international context like ours.

It does, but mostly if you also care about the hour and minute of the 
timestamp [1].


>> It also avoids flapping of the date between entries (i.e. a newer entry
>> having an older date than the previous one).

This appears to be mainly an esthetic issue (and probably also rarely 
happens).


> the same time, I'd like us to standardise on UTC

But why? Which problem does it solve for p.mask entries?


>>> I usually just enter my locale date here and like to avoid having to
>>> think about that UTC is potentially in a different date. I also can
>>> not remember any situation where the date being in UTC matters. Plus,
>>> if you want accurate timestamps, then the git commit/author date is
>>> here for you. :)
> 
> Users consume p.mask entries directly rather than via git.

Correct. But how many users reading p.mask entries thought about the 
timezone the date timestamp is in? I'd assume at most only a few, 
because it is not relevant to know if its +00 or +02 or -07.

Some, including me, consider timestamps without timezone specifiers to 
be in local time (either of the consumer or producer of the timestamp). 
Hence, if you really must have UTC here, then at least consider making 
it explicit my requiring the 'Z' timezone specifier (which, if you want 
to be ISO compatible, probably means that the timestamp must include 
HH:MM too).

- Flow


1: That is probably why I don't see a timezone specifier for calendar 
dates in ISO 8601.