Update leap second lists #1093
Update leap second lists #1093
Conversation
|
I think we should kill this feature and move to Google style time distortion
…Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 4, 2019, at 2:30 PM, Fang ***@***.***> wrote:
I found a good source for the "leapsecond days", so I added that in as a comment, for future reference.
I'm unsure where the "leapsecond dates" was sourced from, having a hard time finding a source that uses those exact times, so I just did the "second at end of day" thing that the previous two leap seconds did.
(The list under +lef is an argument in favor of #1065. (^: )
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
#1093
Commit Summary
Update leap second lists
File Changes
M sys/zuse.hoon (45)
Patch Links:
https://github.com/urbit/arvo/pull/1093.patch
https://github.com/urbit/arvo/pull/1093.diff
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
|
@belisarius222 no idea. I just tagged you randomly, this change as presented only requires the ability to fact-check. Reference on (leap) time smearing here. |
|
(For the record I think we're fine merging this in as a quick fix, and then discussing the proper approach to leap seconds in a dedicated issue.) |
|
Don't feel strongly about this, but I thought it was urbit's considered
position not to respect leap seconds after the initial launch? (Super
surprised to see ~2015 on that list for that matter, but at least then we
could meaningfully have been described as not yet launched)
…On Monday, 4 March 2019, Fang ***@***.***> wrote:
(For the record I think we're fine merging this in as a quick fix, and
then discussing the proper approach to leap seconds in a dedicated issue.)
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1093 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABxXhoPl7kMtcLmKTXesLxnBbXCS-d8Eks5vTbjPgaJpZM4bdV40>
.
|
|
@Fang- I peeked at this and it looks reasonable enough. Still want it merged? |
Fang-
requested review from
pilfer-pandex
and removed request for
belisarius222
|
I guess the decision on this is in @pilfer-pandex's hands? Even if we want to do leap second smearing eventually, this should keep us accurate in the mean time. But curious to hear if anyone still has strong feelings about the "position not to respect leap seconds after the initial launch", which I only recently learned of. |
|
Yeah, I agree that the issue of whether or not to adopt leap smearing (which is probably better) is separate from this quick fix of sorts. |
|
@pilfer-pandex tagging you to check on this one. My thinking here is that:
But the latter should be handled in another issue. I'll merge this tomorrow unless there are any complaints! |
| @@ -6882,28 +6882,33 @@ | |||
| :: :: ++lef:yu:chrono: | |||
| ++ lef :: leapsecond dates | |||
| ^- (list @da) | |||
| :~ ~2015.6.30..23.59.59 ~2012.6.30..23.59.59 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
One minor comment: For better diff legibility around things like this in the future, we should probably have one entry per line
| ^- (list @da) | ||
| :~ ~2015.7.1 ~2012.7.1 ~2009.1.1 ~2006.1.1 ~1999.1.1 ~1997.7.1 |
I found a good source for the "leapsecond days", so I added that in as a comment, for future reference.
I'm unsure where the "leapsecond dates" was sourced from, having a hard time finding a source that uses those exact times, so I just did the "second at end of day" thing that the previous two leap seconds did.
(The list under
+lefis an argument in favor of #1065. (^: )