Re: daylight savings nov 2 (US)

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:53 AM, <rob@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<rob>
One other thing to consider is maintainability. Is someone else coming
along going to be able to maintain your program?
</rob>

<John>
Is this still directed at me? If so, you are still completely
misunderstanding me. If it's directed at someone else, then who? Did
someone else suggest writing a program? If so, I missed it.
</John>

Sorry, my bad I thought the following
<snip>
Maybe someone should write a program that goes out and periodically
retrieves NIST time and compares it to system time.
</snip>
involved writing a program.

It does involve writing a program, and I did suggest it. What you
don't seem to be getting at all is that the program is not meant to
synchronize anything. It's not meant to have any effect whatsoever on
the system time. It's not meant to stay on the system any longer than
it takes for me to gather the information that I'm interested in.

The point of the program is to find out, by empirical observation
instead of consulting documentation, JUST HOW GRADUAL the "gradual"
time adjustment is. (I am a big fan of documentation, but it appears
that this is some kind of special, secret sauce that IBM doesn't share
with just anyone, judging by the inability of anyone on this list to
produce a link to specific details.)

So the plan would be...

***IF*** our system does use the gradual time adjustment for Daylight
Saving Time (and this whole exercise is pointless if it doesn't),

***THEN*** have a job that starts several hours before the time change
and ends several hours after the time change, polling NIST every few
moments to see what the difference is between system time and actual
time, and logging the results so that...

...I can inspect them on Monday to see what the system did to effect
this so-called "gradual" change. After that, I can delete the
program, with curiosity satisfied.

Do you really have trouble with the idea that someone could want to
discover information without doing anything "practical" with it? Or
is this an elaborate joke that I've completely missed?

John