[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: RFC: date parser strawman

From: Max Bowsher <maxb_at_ukf.net>
Date: 2004-01-01 18:20:56 CET

Julian Reschke wrote:
> Max Bowsher wrote:
>
>> If YYYY/MM/DD is cheap to support, I think svn should support it -
because
>> cvs supports it, and svn aim to replace cvs.
>
> The same can be said about almost every other format. This particular
> format seems to be a particulary bad idea as it isn't a standard
> anywhere, right?

Well, it is the format used by cvs in "cvs log" output. So cvs users are
more likely to be familiar with this farmat than any of the myriad other
formats cvs allows.

> Besides, I thought the whole point was to start with the international
> standard format - ISO8601 - and to move everything else into post-1.0
> releases?

My apologies, I haven't been following the thread very closely - must have
missed that.
In which case, the question is, is the fact that cvs log uses this format
enough to make this format worthwhile for 1.0 despite this.

Max.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Jan 1 18:31:15 2004

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.