Re: [PATCH] strbuf_addftime(): handle "%s" manually

[Jeff King <peff@peff.net>]

On Wed, Nov 03, 2021 at 01:28:00PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> I think this also needs squashing in?
> 
>  Documentation/rev-list-options.txt | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git c/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt w/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt
> index 24569b06d1..43a86fa562 100644
> --- c/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt
> +++ w/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt
> @@ -1047,7 +1047,7 @@ omitted.
>  has no effect.
>  
>  `--date=format:...` feeds the format `...` to your system `strftime`,
> -except for %z and %Z, which are handled internally.
> +except for %s, %z, and %Z, which are handled internally.
>  Use `--date=format:%c` to show the date in your system locale's
>  preferred format.  See the `strftime` manual for a complete list of
>  format placeholders. When using `-local`, the correct syntax is

Ah, thanks. I didn't even think to look in the documentation, because I
didn't imagine that we would expose these implementation details. But
since we do mention %z there, I think adding %s makes sense.

BTW, I also noticed that stftime supports some locale modifiers. So
"%Es" ends up printing the epoch seconds, but eludes our manual
intervention (and so does the old, wrong thing). I'm fine with stopping
here, though. There's no reason to use %Es over %s (from what I gather,
the %E is about handling year eras for locales that support them, but
that's meaningless for an epoch time), and I'm not sure it is even a
portable thing (glibc does not mention it in the manpage along with
other %E values, but it does work; POSIX does not even define %s, so of
course does not mention %Es).

-Peff