[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#16386: maybe a small Bug in date?
From: |
Eric Blake |
Subject: |
bug#16386: maybe a small Bug in date? |
Date: |
Tue, 07 Jan 2014 10:10:58 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 |
tag 16386 notabug
thanks
On 01/07/2014 08:37 AM, address@hidden wrote:
> Hello,
>
> could this be a bug in date?
Thanks for the report. However, this is not a bug in date, but a
misunderstanding on your part, covered in our FAQ.
https://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/faq/coreutils-faq.html#The-date-command-is-not-working-right_002e
>
> OK: date +%V_%Y -d "last wednesday" -> 01_2014
Do not mix %V and %Y. %V goes with %G, %Y goes with %U or %W.
> OK: date +%V_%Y -d "last wednesday +1 week" -> 02_2014
> ...
> OK: date +%V_%Y -d "last wednesday +51 week" -> 52_2014
> WRONG: date +%V_%Y -d "last wednesday +52 week" -> 01_2014
> This should be 01_2015: ^^^^
No, you are using the wrong format string. When you mix two different
formats that use different notions of when a year rolls over, you are
bound to get confusing results. But those results are correct, once you
re-read the documentation of what those format strings represent.
> Diese E-Mail könnte vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschützte Informationen
This disclaimer is unenforceable on a publicly-archived mailing list.
It is considered poor email etiquette to open source lists to use your
employer's email if they are going to tack on garbage.
--
Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature