Re: API issues we might want to solve for 1.0

kfogel@collab.net wrote:

>Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:
>
>
>> #6: We still use getdate.y, which implements a bizarre and arbitrary
>> set of date formats. (Did you know that "3" is a date?)
>> IMPACT OF PROBLEM: We'll be stuck with getdate.y forever.
>> DIFFICULTY OF FIX: Major. And we already have people (including
>> developers) relying on getdate's foibles. Bleah.
>>
>>
>
>We don't really need to fix this for 1.0, as long as whatever date
>formats we extend to in the future are a superset of what we currently
>support. (Or a superset of all the ones people actually use, anyway
>:-) ).
>
>What are the particular foibles people are relying on already?
>
>I'd like to avoid messing with this, unless the current interface
>truly guarantees brokenness down the road.
>
>

I'm sure I've said before that getdate.y is a totall mess. Even ignoring
the fact that there's no way to localise it, it accepts far too many
things as a valid date string. "Last tuesday" indeed.

I for one would be totally happy if it accepted only ISO-ish dates and
times for 1.0, and be damned with CVS compatibility.

-- 
Brane Čibej   <brane_at_xbc.nu>   http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org