>> The proposed format is much simpler to manage in a script, and if you're
>> interested in runtime, its formatting would be less expensive than %t and
>> %m.
>
> Maybe, but do we really need two? How about just %M?
I guess Tomas put 2 formats because there was 2 time formats to begin
with, but truncating/rouding if someone really wants seconds is quite
easy.
> Also, having just one would open the door to calling it something like
> %u (for Unix timestamp),
I guess that is okay as well.
--
Fabien.
