[LEAPSECS] Crunching Bulletin B numbers (POSIX time)

[Joe Gwinn]

At 11:30 PM +0200 2/19/11, Paul Sheer wrote:

>On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 11:08 -0500, Joe Gwinn wrote:

>>  At 3:59 PM +0000 2/19/11, Ian Batten wrote:

>>  >On 19 Feb 2011, at 15:41, Gerard Ashton wrote:

>>  >

>>  >>  On 2/19/2011 10:24 AM, Joe Gwinn wrote, in part:

>>  >>>  I have not been following the proposal in detail, but a key issue

>>  >>>to the POSIX community is that their timescale must be

>>  >>>implementable in a totally isolated machine, one having no GPS or

>>  >>>internet access.

>>  >>>

>

>

>precisely,

>

>this is why leap seconds announced ten years in advanced

>are important: they allow for a stand-alone machine, albeit

>one that only needs to have it's software upgraded once in

>ten years.


This would go a long way to resolving the POSIX objections.

If such an approach is in fact adopted, and I very much doubt that 
the Timelords much care about POSIX.



>  > >>>  There are other requirements as well.  This was discussed at

>>  >>>length on the Time Nuts reflector, until Tom kicked the thread

>>  >>>over to Leap Secs.

>

>

>

>>

>>  This was beaten to death on the Time Nuts reflector in the thread

>>  "Leap seconds and POSIX" around January 2009.

>>

>

>what was the summary?


There was none - it degenerated into the usual brawl, then Tom 
ejected the combatants.

But the reason to look at the old thread is that I laid out the POSIX 
requirements with some precision, and handling of leap seconds was a 
big deal.

Joe Gwinn