On 01/02/17 08:39 AM, Steve Summit wrote:
On further reflection, I think we're all right. For every
let's-look-at-the-arithmetic argument that suggests we should
use the "new" offset during the leap second, I can come up with
one which suggests the opposite. (Basically it depends on
whether you
On 19/05/15 08:30 PM, Joseph M Gwinn wrote:
>> From: "Eric R. Smith"
>> To: Leap Second Discussion List
>>> True UTC (with leap seconds) didn't cure a problem the committee cared
>>> about, and managed to cause problems they did care about. In short
On 19/05/15 05:39 PM, Joseph M Gwinn wrote:
>> From: "Poul-Henning Kamp"
>> To: Leap Second Discussion List , Hal
>> Murray
>> Date: 05/19/2015 02:22 PM
>> Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] Look Before You Leap ? The Coming Leap
>> Second and AWS | Hacker News
>> Sent by: "LEAPSECS"
>>
>>
>> In m
On 2014-01-18 12:02, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
>> [POSIX time]
...
>> It's defined as a transformation of a broken-down UTC timestamp, not
>> (despite its name) as a count of seconds since some instant.
>
> No. If your poke around into how time is used, you will discover that
> what is stored in the c
On 2014-01-18 10:21, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <52da845e.4000...@hfx.eastlink.ca>, "Eric R. Smith" writes:
>
>>> As you are no doubt aware, the POSIX time_t does not do that.
>>
>> Doesn't it? If POSIX time_t were in fact a count of SI s
On 2014-01-18 06:56, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <52da2a0f.9060...@rubidium.dyndns.org>, Magnus Danielson writes:
>
>> If you where right about not basing it on the orbital debris, then we
>> should not attempt to be using concepts like seconds, minutes, hours,
>> days, weeks, months,
