Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 23:55:23 -0700 From: Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: suggested addition to 'date' Message-ID: <20060813065523.CA1042948D@mail.bitblocks.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 12 Aug 2006 20:02:04 PDT." <44DE962C.7050402@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Who's messing with date? it acts as before except if you need to > annotate a stream with timestamps.. I understand what you are saying; just don't agree with you that date(1) is the right place to make this change. Particularly as it is not a filter. > Now puting it in logger.. THAT is an unintuitive program to make into a > date adding filter. Your original intention was to timestamp lines in a logfile. What better program than logger(1) for that? And logger already accepts data on stdin. > 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. Which is why I said extend logger if you must. Or a separate date-filter program. > I really can't believe the people who are complaining about this.. I > should have just committed it. A disagreement is not a complaint. > Talk about a bikeshed! We are saying don't even build the bikeshed :-) In any case *you* asked for our feedback. At least consider the feedback without impugning our motives.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060813065523.CA1042948D>