Re: RFC: date parser rewrite
From: Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com>
Date: 2003-12-20 01:34:23 CET
mark benedetto king wrote:
Heh - yes.
For what it's worth, I think Karl is talking sense with regard to how this fits into the big picture of releasing the first "proper" version of Subversion.
The only thing as far as I am concerned that would be intolerable is guaranteeing to support all of the currently accepted date formats in future. As I mentioned, we can solve that by documenting that the nasty formats are not supported even though the code happens to accept them currently.
> If we decide not to replace the date parser before 1.0, then I suggest
That sounds like a moderately important thing to do, and a small enough change that porting it into 1.0 is a reasonable option.
> 2.) follow your suggestion to add support for the formats we want
No need to do that for version 1.0. Version 1.0 will still be useful without the new formats, as it has been for a year and more. We can add new formats in version 1.1 or 1.2 or any time later.
> 3.) *Deprecate* all behavior outside the strictly limited input set
Yes - that's the important point. It can be as simple as changing this part of the book:
Subversion accepts an incredible number of date formats—just remember to use quotes around any date that contains spaces. Here are just a few of the formats that Subversion accepts:
$ svn checkout --revision {2002-02-17}
You should specify the date as YYYY-MM-DD hh:mm:ss. (Subversion currently accepts an incredible number of date formats but they won't be supported in future.) Remember to use quotes around any date that contains spaces.
- Julian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
|
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.
This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.