Re: RFC: date parser rewrite

Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:
> +1. Since I think we only use this kind of date-parsing in one place
> (the -r '{DATE}' argument), I don't think this change is very
> destabilizing, even though it churns a lot of code.

Don't we use it anywhere the -r argument is accepted? Maybe it's most
commonly used with 'svn log', but it *could* be used by any command
that accepts -r (with or without a range).

Anyway:

The current situation is certainly not ideal, but it is compatible
with CVS dates. Would it be a smaller change for us to just make
getdate.y handle whatever date formats we want it to handle that it
currently doesn't?

That wouldn't get rid of the ugliness of having getdate.y in our tree,
nor the burden of having getdate.cw... But I don't think that's been a
particularly noticeable burden, either, since getdate.y is quite
static except for occasional point fixes like this.

Do we really need a whole new implementation for 1.0? If the bug is
that we don't support ISO 8601 dates, how hard would it be to fix just
that?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Dec 15 22:10:27 2003