From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general/1190 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Gerrit Pape Newsgroups: gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general Subject: Re: ISO 8601 format (time) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 14:54:27 +0000 Message-ID: <20060704145427.1447.qmail@acc832b18a9a76.315fe32.mid.smarden.org> References: <20060612095505.GA4978@kayumanis> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1152024865 22556 80.91.229.2 (4 Jul 2006 14:54:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 14:54:25 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: supervision-return-1426-gcsg-supervision=m.gmane.org@list.skarnet.org Tue Jul 04 16:54:08 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcsg-supervision@gmane.org Original-Received: from antah.skarnet.org ([212.85.147.14]) by ciao.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FxmHu-0008Fa-5i for gcsg-supervision@gmane.org; Tue, 04 Jul 2006 16:54:06 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 4467 invoked by uid 76); 4 Jul 2006 14:54:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact supervision-help@list.skarnet.org; run by ezmlm List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: Original-Received: (qmail 4462 invoked from network); 4 Jul 2006 14:54:27 -0000 Original-To: supervision@list.skarnet.org Mail-Followup-To: supervision@list.skarnet.org Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060612095505.GA4978@kayumanis> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general:1190 Archived-At: On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 04:55:05PM +0700, Roy Lanek wrote: > What about adding a ... > > -ti > > timestamp. Prefix each selected line with a human > readable, sortable, ISO 8601 compliant timestamp of > the form YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SS.xxxxx when writing to log > or to standard error. > > in the options of svlogd (runit/socklog)? > > Notice the difference: -tt uses '_', -ti 'T' ... example: > > 2006-05-11_02:45:09.25607 vs. 2006-05-11T02:45:09.25607 > > -tt is fine, but not *standard* (ISO); on the other hand, > it can't be changed *a posteriori* that easily/quickly. This is the 3rd request of this kind IIRC, so maybe it's not that a bad idea. Personally I find the underscore much better to read. Regards, Gerrit.