Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Implement option for ISO 8601 timestamps #229

Open
NCommander opened this issue Nov 19, 2015 · 4 comments
Open

Implement option for ISO 8601 timestamps #229

NCommander opened this issue Nov 19, 2015 · 4 comments

Comments

@NCommander
Copy link
Contributor

Got the suggestion on the last feedback. Should be a nice easy task for anyone who wants to pickup the codebase.

@darkfeline
Copy link

Idle thought: performance-wise, would it be a problem to allow users to provide their own strftime-formatted string? That would remove the need for the (in my opinion) odd set of date/time formats that SN has at the moment.

@TheMightyBuzzard
Copy link
Contributor

I don't think it would be too much of a hit. I mean we're basically already doing that just with a limited set.

@marty-b
Copy link
Contributor

marty-b commented Nov 22, 2015

On 11/19/2015 10:29 AM, TheMightyBuzzard wrote:

I don't /think/ it would be too much of a hit. I mean we're basically
already doing that just with a limited set.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#229 (comment).

I really like the idea of custom date/time stamp displays. Along with
the suggested ISO8601, I'd very much like to be able to create/use
something along the lines of: ccyymmdd_HHMMSS (DOW) where DOW ==> DayOf
Week (e.g. WED)

Would this require adding a new field in the DB on a per-user basis to
store their custom setting?

@TheMightyBuzzard
Copy link
Contributor

Yep, that's exactly what it would require along with changes to the code. No big whoop though. Easy to do, it'd just be a little time consuming.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants