> Everyones code cares about leap-seconds depending on how you look at it. > Imagine someone writing an "epoch" timestamp, upgrading DateTime, and > reading in the old timestamp. There is now a 1 second error - Ouch. The same > thing applies for someone with a broken version of DateTime reading in a > timestamp that was generated with a fixed version.
There is no easy way to get an "epoch" timestamp from DateTime, other than the epoch() method. And the epoch method returns the standard unix timestamps, which do not include leap seconds. I know of no computer system that includes the leap seconds in their epoch timestamps. So most people will not be affected. The only timestamps affected are those like TAI64. If people used my DT::Format::Epoch modules for those kind of timestamps, they would have gotten the correct timestamps, as I corrected for the extra second. They do have to upgrade to the new version of DT::F::Epoch when they update DateTime, though. > Or what about the people > parsing stamps not generated by DateTime? Again, most of these stamps will be unix timestamps, and therefore are not affected by the removal of a leap second. Eugene
