[debbugs-tracker] bug#10699: closed (bug of `date`: why 1/1/2012 is the second week of 2012?)

[GNU bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Thu, 02 Feb 2012 10:30:53 -0800
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: bug#10699: bug of `date`: why 1/1/2012 is the second week 
of 2012?
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #10699,
regarding bug of `date`: why 1/1/2012 is the second week of 2012?
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
address@hidden)


-- 
10699: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=10699
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems

--- Begin Message --- Subject: bug of `date`: why 1/1/2012 is the second week of 2012? Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 02:25:59 -0600

$ date -d "2012-01-01 00:00:00" +%U

01

 

but in “man date”

%U     week number of year, with Sunday as first day of week (00..53)

 

Is it a bug?

 

$ uname -r

2.6.18-128.1.6.el5xen

 

--- End Message ---

> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Re: bug#10699: bug of `date`: why 1/1/2012 is the second week of 2012?
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Thu, 02 Feb 2012 10:30:53 -0800
>
>
>
>
> User-agent: 
>
> Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;	rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0
>
>
>
>
> On 02/02/2012 12:25 AM, Wang, YuanTao wrote:
> > $ date -d "2012-01-01 00:00:00" +%U
> > 01
> > 
> > but in "man date"
> > %U     week number of year, with Sunday as first day of week (00..53)
> > 
> > Is it a bug?
>
> No.  As the manual (which has more detail) says,
> "Days in a new year preceding the first Sunday are in week zero."
> In 2012 there are no such days, so January 1 is week 1.
>
>
> --- End Message ---