Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 20:02:04 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: suggested addition to 'date' Message-ID: <44DE962C.7050402@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <20060812205822.151AF2948D@mail.bitblocks.com> References: <20060812205822.151AF2948D@mail.bitblocks.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bakul Shah wrote: >>To me it seems more natural to add the few extra lines to date because >>in my mind it is a natural >>usage of date and extending date to be able to be used as a filter >>doesn't hurt existing functionality. >> >> > >I may want to prepend a log line with not just a timestamp >but also other information such as user, group, hostname etc. >This change may be small but it does not belong in date(1). >Just as I wouldn't want to extend hostname(1) to be a filter. >It makes more sense to extend logger(1), not date(1). > >Don't mess with my date:-) > > Who's messing with date? it acts as before except if you need to annotate a stream with timestamps.. Now puting it in logger.. THAT is an unintuitive program to make into a date adding filter. Date's job is to output the time.. it makes perfect sense to me to allow it to append the time to a stream as well. logger's job is to send data to the syslog system, which already date stamps things. It is not designed to be a filter but it already takes file input and outputs to stderr. I really can't believe the people who are complaining about this.. I should have just committed it. Talk about a bikeshed!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44DE962C.7050402>