Re: suggested addition to 'date'

> Who's messing with date? it acts as before except if you need to 
> annotate a stream with timestamps..

I understand what you are saying; just don't agree with you
that date(1) is the right place to make this change.
Particularly as it is not a filter.

> Now puting it in logger.. THAT is an unintuitive program to make into a 
> date adding filter.

Your original intention was to timestamp lines in a logfile.
What better program than logger(1) for that?  And logger
already accepts data on stdin.

> logger's job is to send data to the syslog system, which already date 
> stamps things.
> It is not designed to be a filter but it already takes file input and 
> outputs to stderr.

Which is why I said extend logger if you must.  Or a separate
date-filter program.

> I really can't believe the people who are complaining about this.. I 
> should have just committed it.

A disagreement is not a complaint.

> Talk about a bikeshed!

We are saying don't even build the bikeshed :-)

In any case *you* asked for our feedback.  At least consider
the feedback without impugning our motives.