Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-aurora-reviews-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-aurora-reviews-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2BEF8196A2 for ; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 02:17:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 45454 invoked by uid 500); 5 Apr 2016 02:17:54 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-aurora-reviews-archive@aurora.apache.org Received: (qmail 45395 invoked by uid 500); 5 Apr 2016 02:17:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact reviews-help@aurora.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: reviews@aurora.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list reviews@aurora.apache.org Received: (qmail 45378 invoked by uid 99); 5 Apr 2016 02:17:54 -0000 Received: from reviews-vm.apache.org (HELO reviews.apache.org) (140.211.11.40) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Apr 2016 02:17:54 +0000 Received: from reviews.apache.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by reviews.apache.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DBE52A655C; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 02:17:52 +0000 (UTC) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="===============1053863300022716161==" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Review Request 45721: thermos local-time From: John Sirois To: Aurora , John Sirois , se choi Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2016 02:17:52 -0000 Message-ID: <20160405021752.20107.18513@reviews.apache.org> X-ReviewBoard-URL: https://reviews.apache.org/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Sender: John Sirois X-ReviewGroup: Aurora X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, OOF, AutoReply X-ReviewRequest-URL: https://reviews.apache.org/r/45721/ X-Sender: John Sirois References: <20160405013249.20107.28690@reviews.apache.org> In-Reply-To: <20160405013249.20107.28690@reviews.apache.org> Reply-To: John Sirois X-ReviewRequest-Repository: aurora --===============1053863300022716161== MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/45721/#review127008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Do you have any thoughts on why localtime should be the winner here? Imagine these scenarios: You're an operator for a cluster that lives 3 timezones away You're an operator for 3 clusters, each in different timezones. I'm not sure which is better, local time or UTC, but for non-trivial setups, UTC is at least more neutral in general. This is not a string argument one way or the other, but calling the shot on the choice would be a good addition to the RB (and eventual commit) description IMO. - John Sirois On April 4, 2016, 7:32 p.m., se choi wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/45721/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated April 4, 2016, 7:32 p.m.) > > > Review request for Aurora. > > > Repository: aurora > > > Description > ------- > > thermos local-time > > 1. Scheduler display +09:00 (Locale timezone) > 2. Thermos Observer display on UTC (+00:00) > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/main/python/apache/thermos/observer/http/templates/main.tpl b905699897254b4a3ff6a3d03a072ac24d56e929 > src/main/python/apache/thermos/observer/http/templates/process.tpl 4ca52bac41e638bb26c17bddee0d8946df895522 > src/main/python/apache/thermos/observer/http/templates/task.tpl f3e06985eb3c05572aa4389d97da575b1179f616 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/45721/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > se choi > > --===============1053863300022716161==--