Štěpán Němec <step...@smrk.net> wrote: > Fixes: 738c4a65719e ("www: various help text updates") > --- > On a related note, there's this comment in LeiXSearch.pm:312: > > # this should really be rt: (received-time), but no stable > # public-inbox releases support it, yet. > my $dt = 'dt:'.strftime('%Y%m%d%H%M%S', gmtime($lr)).'..'; > > So I went all "hey, it's been 3 releases with rt:, let's do this", > and suddenly, `lei up` stopped getting any updates :-]
> The problem is that the date syntax handling for d:, dt: and rt: is not > the same (date_parse_prepare in Search.pm), which doesn't seem ideal to > me, either, but maybe that's intentional/necessary? Yeah, probably: "rt:$lr.."; is correct. It's historical baggage since rt: wasn't really used until we got IMAP (2020); and we didn't have user-friendly approxidate parsing until 2021. d: and dt: had to be at least usable before 2021, so it's more usable in "raw" form. It's expensive to reindex so it's not something I'm inclined to force users into doing, either... d: was a short-sighted mistake and redundant. I suppose we could stop indexing d: at some point (like we do with --skip-docdata) and translate all (not just most) d: into dt: in the parser. > On a totally unrelated note, this patch is a nice example of how > --diff-algorithm=histogram (which I use by default) sometimes produces > diffs that are both longer and more confusing than with any other > (git-provided) algorithm: Heh, I've never touched --diff-algorithm. But I sometimes pipe messages to `lei rediff -W' or `lei rediff -U100' to get more context. I hope to add support for rediff to the WWW UI once coderepo integration is improved.