[LEAPSECS] ISO Influence

[Poul-Henning Kamp]

In message <5886C3EA-6924-4BE3-A67D-929017FA2EF7 at noao.edu>, Rob Seaman writes:


>>> Due diligence in system engineering should not be controversial.

>> 

>> ... and it should come with a cost estimate.

>

>So let's see.  (Putting aside the actual system requirements for the 

>moment.)

>

>The comparative costs and risks of UTC without leap seconds are unknown 

>relative to the status quo (UTC with leap seconds). 


But you forget an important fact Rob:  In computing UTC doesn't
have leap seconds presently.

The majority of the code we know "to work" only works by ignoring
leap-seconds.  If we change the POSIX definition to have leap
second, all that code will need to be reviewed and fixed.

So if we are to do what you call "Good Systems Engineering", no
matter what we decide, if keep leapseconds, if have them with much
longer warning or if we abandon them, we will have to review all
software which may be buggy with respect to whatever definition of
leap seconds we choose.

Before we can do that, we need to find it.

So lets get started, we need to estimate how much time&money we
need.

So how much source code can you review for leap-second sensitivity in
an hour ?

Poul-Henning

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk at FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.