Bug 3467

Summary: RFE: inconsistent use of date formats in bugzilla screens (nit-picking category :)
Product: [Community] Bugzilla Reporter: Eric Maryniak <e.maryniak>
Component: Bugzilla GeneralAssignee: David Lawrence <dkl>
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE QA Contact:
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: low    
Version: 2.1rCCC: e.maryniak
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: FutureFeature
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
URL: http://pobox.com/~e.maryniak/
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2000-08-04 18:41:17 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Eric Maryniak 1999-06-14 21:05:54 UTC
This one really falls in the nit-picking category, and
I would have given it ultra-low priority if possible---
but being a fan of the ISO 8601 date format (CCYY-MM-DD,
eg. 1999-06-14), I could not help but notice the
inconsistent use of date formats in the several Bugzilla
screens, eg:
...
                                       Opened: 1999-05-03
...
------- Additional Comments ... 05/03/99 11:01 -------
...

Note that the first date seems OK, but is probably not,
ccyy-dd-mm in lieu of ccyy-mm-dd and the second does not
have cc (century). Furthermore, both dates are specific for
the US; Europe mostly uses dd-mm-ccyy notation. ISO 8601
has all sorts of nice qualities, such as millenium-
proofness, numerical and lexical ordering == date ordering
etc. Also note that in 2001 etc. dates will look strange,
what to bake of '02/03/01' etc., whereas 2001-02-03 is
clearer.
You may want to check the ISO 8601 date standard at:

    http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-time.html

Comment 1 David Lawrence 2000-08-04 18:41:15 UTC
Good point. Changed to enhancement request.

Comment 2 Brent Fox 2002-06-04 19:02:27 UTC
I think the date format is more consistent now.