Re: RFC: date parser rewrite

> For the record, I disagree with all of your reasons.
>
> 1. The current situation is intolerable. We nominally support date
> formats that don't warrant that name. Whatever we do to change
> that, we'll be yanking suppor for at least some of those date
> formats, and doing that after 1.0 (after we've known about this
> problem for ages) is a bad move.
> 2. We don't support date formats that we _should_ support.
> 3. Going with a limited set of supported date formats, like MBK
> suggests, isn't going to cause that many problems. The parsing
> code is a simple function that can be tested to death very easily.
>
> +1 for changing the date parser before 1.0. We'll do ourselves and our
> users a favour.

I too am very much in favor of starting with a clean (possibly small)
well-defined set of dates. Extending that is easier than having to maintain the
current - documented or not - set.

bye,

eErik.

-- 
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++
Neu: Preissenkung für MMS und FreeMMS! http://www.gmx.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org