[LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 82, Issue 6

[Daniel R. Tobias]

On 10 Aug 2013 at 21:02, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:


> I'm simply distinguishing systems which know about leap seconds from

> those which are totally unaware of their existence.


For the vast majority of systems, being totally unaware of leap 
seconds is the most sensible way to run them. Once a leap second 
happens, it will be part of the "time drift" between the local clock 
and whatever external standard it syncs to, and is taken care of the 
same as all the other slippages (which can add up to a number of 
seconds if the local clock is not very accurate and/or the time 
between re-syncings is long). The jump on re-syncing can be done as a 
sudden discontinuity or smoothed out depending on what is least 
disruptive. Only a tiny handful of highly specialized applications 
need anything more constantly precise than this.

For everybody outside those handful of specialized applications, 
attempting to deal "correctly" with leap seconds at the moment they 
happen is both unnecessary and likely to cause more problems than it 
solves.


-- 
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/