Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CFD626699 for ; Fri, 20 May 2011 11:00:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 4603 invoked by uid 500); 20 May 2011 11:00:25 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 4567 invoked by uid 500); 20 May 2011 11:00:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 4559 invoked by uid 99); 20 May 2011 11:00:25 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 May 2011 11:00:25 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.9 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,FS_REPLICA,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RFC_ABUSE_POST,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of djc.ochtman@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.52 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.216.52] (HELO mail-qw0-f52.google.com) (209.85.216.52) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 May 2011 11:00:19 +0000 Received: by qwb8 with SMTP id 8so2496993qwb.11 for ; Fri, 20 May 2011 03:59:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=Yk6jk1Hk/A6Ba5RVHrgKPQAULucevZLcOlga1yZZI7s=; b=q/uqgYE23l4Q7SQjcqa/r5RUMZGwyh/KzMK4EqbECKv+fPV08D6YlEqs2qz4hx1+bO HzRSst20GmvgHBOF0Z0mKT9d/wVqhvLsD1hUdYb4trLM+l+eHKeiebkPKLaN93xpdv1q tXPhl/6K4EwyhkO0E/HWznJ0KYp+WzhvMQ1+w= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type; b=Ay6d5/pe7ch1y9nY1rrT1lGPHDp8KXv9b2K+DOZ1WVF6Bidn042dYgM1HmNT3TmRVb W/a/sW1UHCf0271BmduMCNPzi74fAwpqxPmIwQkEIIcz2Mj+51isBVtxm6XbpYWH80hV tnBa4KtNzN8mjIpG/bOEm4XpDYH7gDk0jmG3k= Received: by 10.229.42.142 with SMTP id s14mr3278523qce.174.1305889198184; Fri, 20 May 2011 03:59:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: djc.ochtman@gmail.com Received: by 10.229.32.143 with HTTP; Fri, 20 May 2011 03:59:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Dirkjan Ochtman Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 12:59:37 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: UxSIJRkBi4D5Jtty59cEGTnbRsA Message-ID: Subject: Re: replication document timestamps as rfc3339 timestamps To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:41, Filipe David Manana wrote: > Yesterday, via the IRC channel, Max Odgen suggested using RFC3339 [1] > compliant timestamps in replication documents. Currently they are Unix > timestamps (number of seconds since January 1st 1970). > I like the idea, I find it much more human readable (it's text based). > > Any objection about doing this change before 1.1.0 is released? > > [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3339 Sounds good, supposing it won't delay 1.1.0 too much. Cheers, Dirkjan