nitpicking date format

[Adrian Buehlmann]

(forwarding this to the list, got it in private email)

On 2011-04-28 18:26, Ben wrote:
> Hi Adrian,
> 
> Sorry for replying off-band, I'm not at work, and cannot respond
> conveniently to your mail.
> 
>>
>> Another (possibly nitpickish) thing I started wondering (sorry for
>> mentioning this late):
>> Would it make sense to have the dates inside the html page in
>> isodatesec format or similar (e.g. "2009-08-18 13:00:13 +0200", see
>> 'hg help templating') instead of the current (example) "Tue Apr 26
>> 14:42:14 2011 +0200"?
>> isodatesec looks like it might be a bit easier to parse and it's even
>> a little bit shorter (5 bytes per date).
> 
> No, actually, this wouldn't be handy as Javascript is directly parsing
> the "Tue Apr 26 14:42:14 2011
> +0200". The other date format would mean extra parsing work. And that
> "Tue Apr 26 14:42:14 2011
> +0200" has already been there since the beginning at most of the places
> (see changeset description).
> 
> About your bandwidth concern at those places (changeset description), we
> are actually winning bytes by not transferring the "(XXX ago)" over the
> link, but generating it locally.
> 
> I will send an updated patch tomorrow morning when arriving at work.