Re: [PATCH] find.1: avoid misunderstanding of `-prtinf %Ak` description

On Wednesday, October 7, 2020 12:36:56 AM CEST Bernhard Voelker wrote:
> Hi Kamil,
> 
> On 2020-10-06 17:10, Kamil Dudka wrote:
> > * find/find.1 (-printf): Make it clear that strftime() format
> > description in this man page is incomplete and refer to the
> > strftime() documentation instead.
> > 
> > Suggested in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1882695
> > ---
> > 
> >  find/find.1 | 5 ++---
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/find/find.1 b/find/find.1
> > index ee7c6842..0bc882b3 100644
> > --- a/find/find.1
> > +++ b/find/find.1
> > @@ -1420,9 +1420,8 @@ File's last access time in the format returned by
> > the C `ctime' function.> 
> >  File's last access time in the format specified by
> >  .IR k ,
> >  which is either `@' or a directive for the C `strftime' function.
> > 
> > -The possible values for \fIk\fR are listed below;
> > -some of them might not be available on all systems,
> > -due to differences in `strftime' between systems.
> > +Below is an excerpt of possible values for \fIk\fR.  For full list
> > +please refer to documentation of `strftime'.
> > 
> >  .RS
> >  .IP @
> >  seconds since Jan.\& 1, 1970, 00:00 GMT, with fractional part.
> 
> Thanks for the patch.
> 
> I prefer to keep the sentence that the supported list of conversion
> specifiers may vary among different systems.
> 
> Reading the original bug report, I found it useful to add the 'F'
> conversion specifier - yielding the IMO quite useful 'yyyy-dd-mm'
> date format.

Looks perfect.  Thank you for extending the patch!

> Finally, I added similar clarification to the Texinfo manual.
> 
> May I push the attached in your name?

Sure.  Thanks!

Kamil

> Thanks & have a nice day,
> Berny