Bug#580932: should be more tolerant in editing date tag

2010-05-19 Thread Christine Spang
tags 580932 + wontfix On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 09:25:31PM +0200, W. Martin Borgert wrote: I see. Let's close this bug then. I'm marking it 'wontfix' instead, so in case someone else has the same idea later it will still appear on the bug page. regards, Christine -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to

Bug#580932: should be more tolerant in editing date tag

2010-05-18 Thread Steven Robertson
On 05/09/2010 06:16 PM, W. Martin Borgert wrote: Both quodlibet and exfalso accept only ISO-8601-style dates, which is a little bit too intolerant for my taste. Please change the behaviour of exfalso/quodlibet into a warning. ID3 mandates ISO-8601-style dates. The QL developers are interested

Bug#580932: should be more tolerant in editing date tag

2010-05-18 Thread W. Martin Borgert
Quoting Steven Robertson ste...@strobe.cc: ID3 mandates ISO-8601-style dates. I see. Let's close this bug then. I recommend using a different tag (i.e. something other than 'date') to store the extended date ranges you describe, or perhaps only the second half of them. OK, thanks for the

Bug#580932: should be more tolerant in editing date tag

2010-05-09 Thread W. Martin Borgert
Package: quodlibet Version: 2.2.1-1 Severity: wishlist Both quodlibet and exfalso accept only ISO-8601-style dates, which is a little bit too intolerant for my taste. It is nice to be warned about wrong date formats, but sometimes I like to enter date tags like: 1969-07-19..1969-07-20 1969-07-19