Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:116030 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 95137 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2021 21:20:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 11 Sep 2021 21:20:16 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F7DB180504 for ; Sat, 11 Sep 2021 14:58:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-ot1-f41.google.com (mail-ot1-f41.google.com [209.85.210.41]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Sat, 11 Sep 2021 14:58:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ot1-f41.google.com with SMTP id c8-20020a9d6c88000000b00517cd06302dso7575575otr.13 for ; Sat, 11 Sep 2021 14:58:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=pFXvjejeiaUo9Cy6figXk9evfycRut1A2baL5Id4fIs=; b=SOL7I7hmsTZ8/Qb4+OX0Ci5DYxs1WO4clwN044MQ9RuwUejKM/M3Hw1ECVOyfAZLDW r96n22R4OEd/tpJbvXdUiO51D0TCXNZIjxVvg8gnX5StZ4TnQ1x0gGsJznTUuQITy+F7 XTC4uq+DZkom5rnbgl0IrPmqBE96dPBeT5RKu5+Fv4+uG9y6V2ZmRF19Xe6kaEkLhU+s s9drGzIMEXb5/ibuc9Zfd3pUrmbM8dQCeVGGObYXKyjs5Qv5FYxRcdIF9WhHlAMMkc0J 0x2el3eAYtzEwrHiSqQh0Il+U4Ik7R4S046ZH7oRc5P4iGKt4l/SRlTJ8r6gzM/QGKjo lZIg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=pFXvjejeiaUo9Cy6figXk9evfycRut1A2baL5Id4fIs=; b=JpiBYe/oWvplELQdAPOq+c4eu817L2OWzEfpsCEhbE4IvUZ6GSdIstEYmCO+ZUpqJN kD1BJWY5DggxmVdZpmd0R+ovt11nTxKDQ1NqS+KmVQQajBUBHDp/tnaJhAYB2Vb0FE0I CB4MaozbHiu30NQZ9wJ3VJA+JDxv0DYOweTKNR9sfdCHtfkjkTDIyWfyGDdTYZG4toEM AY2VOCHI2nszAYHhzJ+0sin1xMoVVXMwrkrUoWpyMbU/54IOtP+oqGnel2OGFow/EyDI kPGBSvVc2ZnCqIPJTMYcJxHwX27v+eEZ3hI1DtjB29uIqcZ/AXOvhDQLc730Sc3xW8BM RYHA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531hWT2uqDHNEwiaYkghS9qdNPn0zBdL1JKGIk+5+w8/gEbGQVki kFligYtYxWvkPaAYuFcHGXRUKPh3t0H/iQoeCHFkORx1My2wMw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJySUXEUuuh5KkgjloYLaQs2BEqw3Jb+OKaU+glBd+6SAEthv2UfML2XmUNr5bTUZIcHks/gIUTz+7bf/5H9iQw= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:2f5:: with SMTP id r21mr3750342ote.24.1631397524920; Sat, 11 Sep 2021 14:58:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <9ECA71F4-F57A-4184-9713-0EF8B7131F97@php.net> In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2021 23:58:32 +0200 Message-ID: To: Derick Rethans Cc: PHP Internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f5dc3405cbbf55b1" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] DateTimeZone silently falls back to UTC when providing seconds From: benjamin.morel@gmail.com (Benjamin Morel) --000000000000f5dc3405cbbf55b1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > >Before doing so, shouldn't we discuss whether it makes sense to accept > >a > >time-zone offset with seconds, when the granularity seems to be 15 > >mins? > > > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UTC_time_offsets > > > >=E2=80=94 Benjamin > > No need. Early timezone offsets in the timezone database are in LMT (loca= l > mean time), which have second granularity. > > cheers, > Derick Hi, sorry for resurrecting an old thread, but now that this bug has been fixed in PHP 8.0.10, I c= an see that seconds have been forbidden from DateTimeZone altogether: https://3v4l.org/QpSln Before forbidding seconds in brick/date-time's *TimeZoneOffset* as well (and going against JSR-310, which this library was derived from), can I please know why this decision was made, when as I understand it, this goes against your statement above? Thanks in advance, - Benjamin --000000000000f5dc3405cbbf55b1--