[Emacs-bug-tracker] bug#8466: closed (2012 week number bug )

[GNU bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:01:44 -0600
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: bug#8466: 2012 week number bug
has caused the GNU bug report #8466,
regarding 2012 week number bug 
to be marked as done.

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


-- 
8466: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=8466
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems

--- Begin Message --- Subject: 2012 week number bug Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 12:04:01 +0300

Also 2017 and presumably every year when Jan 01 falls on Sunday.

Checked for kernel 2.6.16 and 2.6.32, same sht.

This is CRUEL one, man.

 

===  man for ‘date’

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

===

 

sh-3.1$ date -d "01/01/2011" +%U

00

sh-3.1$ date -d "01/01/2012" +%U

01

 

sh-3.1$ uname -a

Linux xxxxx 2.6.16.60-0.58.1.1882.3.PTF.638363-smp #1 SMP Wed Dec 2 12:27:56 UTC 2009 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

 

$ uname -a

Linux xxxxx 2.6.32.26-175.fc12.i686 #1 SMP Wed Dec 1 21:52:04 UTC 2010 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux

 

Regards.

Nik.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
A member of the Intel Corporation group of companies

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

--- End Message ---

> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Re: bug#8466: 2012 week number bug
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:01:44 -0600
>
>
>
>
> User-agent: 
>
> Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
>
>
>
>
> Chichasov, Nikolay wrote:
> > ... in Intel WW1 (work week 1) is the week that contains Jan 01, no
> > matter short or full.
>
> A serious question that sounds silly: Does anyone else follow that
> convention?  Is that week number format documented anywhere?  If so
> then GNU date could be enhanced to provide this information.  But if
> that convention isn't used very widely then it probably isn't worth
> the effort.
>
> Human date calculations have always been problematic.
>
> Since date is behaving as documented and this doesn't seem like a bug,
> to keep things tidy in the bug tracker I will close the bug ticket.
>
> Bob
>
>
> --- End Message ---