Are relative times really that much of a problem? It feels like a lot of trouble for just these to me... On Tuesday, 3 December 2013, Manuel Quiñones wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> 2013/12/3 Walter Bender <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'walter.bender@gmail.com')">walter.bender@gmail.com</a>>: > On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Manuel Quiñones <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'manuq@laptop.org')">manuq@laptop.org</a>> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I think this is a good, but hard one. It makes sense to display >> absolute time when the entries are sorted by creation time. But James >> has two valid points. >> >> 2013/12/2 James Cameron <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'quozl@laptop.org')">quozl@laptop.org</a>>: >>> This exposes a reliance on the absolute time stored in the systems' >>> real time clocks. >>> >>> The cascaded design decisions should include: >>> >>> 1. provide date and time setting in control panel, #3829, >>> >>> 2. allow a deployment to disable the date and time setting, as they may >>> maintain the real time clock for date limited lease signatures. >> >> Yes, those are needed before going with this, and may not be obvious. >> I often forgot that: >> >> - some deployments disable the "date" command >> - most times the XOs date and time are incorrect > > Not sure what we can do about that. Maybe something can be done in user space, as a Sugar setting with a time delta to be added to the real time of the system? The delta could be set in the control panel, to solve #3829 . Anyway, sounds tricky. -- .. manuq .. </blockquote> -- Daniel Narvaez