On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 11:30:14PM -0400, Jesse Vincent claimed:
>>
>> {
>> "http://example.org/bug/12345"; : {
>> "metadata" : {
>> "title" : "There is no documentation",
>> "create_date" : "2012-08-27 15:15 UTC",
>> "date_modified" : "2012-08-28 12:03 UTC",
>
>You may want to consider using ISO8601 timestamps
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601
>Your timestamp parameters may not want to use the word "date" if they're
>actually timestamps.
>You probably want to make those timestamp labels ordered the same (created_at
>& last_modified_at ?)
Both good points. I'll add a note about date formatting to the document
and then update the example.
I'll also change to created_at. I'm hesitant to use last_modified_at
because, being distributed, it is unlikely to be the last modified
version of the bug. Further the date_modified only relates to when the
metadata was last modified at the source. If adding comments counts as
modifying a bug that shouldn't cause this timestamp to change. Perhaps
metadata_modified_at is a more suitable name?
_______________________________________________
dist-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
http://kitenet.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dist-bugs
