On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 04:51:10AM +0200, Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
> On 05/21/2011 02:02 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> >But I'd rather use "in 3 months" or something like that than +3m.
>
> wait, now you're also reaching to the future :)
>
> No I was thinking, if I want to have a range, then I could
On 22.05.2011 10:49, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Neels J Hofmeyr wrote on Sun, May 22, 2011 at 04:51:10 +0200:
>> We should probably have a separate commandline tool instead that
>> creates absolute timestamps:
>>
>> svn log -r "{`reldate yesterday`}"
> +1
What, are you guys serious about that? I tho
Neels J Hofmeyr wrote on Sun, May 22, 2011 at 04:51:10 +0200:
> We should probably have a separate commandline tool instead that
> creates absolute timestamps:
>
> svn log -r "{`reldate yesterday`}"
+1
On 05/21/2011 02:02 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
But I'd rather use "in 3 months" or something like that than +3m.
wait, now you're also reaching to the future :)
No I was thinking, if I want to have a range, then I could pinpoint the
start with a revision, date, whatever, and the end of the ra
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 02:14:03PM +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Stefan Sperling wrote on Sat, May 21, 2011 at 13:07:19 +0200:
> > On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:20:41PM +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > > Stefan Sperling wrote on Fri, May 20, 2011 at 17:26:39 +0200:
> > > > On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 04:28
Stefan Sperling wrote on Sat, May 21, 2011 at 13:07:19 +0200:
> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:20:41PM +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Stefan Sperling wrote on Fri, May 20, 2011 at 17:26:39 +0200:
> > > On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 04:28:55PM +0200, Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
> > > > BUT, why don't we just use
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:20:41PM +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Stefan Sperling wrote on Fri, May 20, 2011 at 17:26:39 +0200:
> > On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 04:28:55PM +0200, Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
> > > BUT, why don't we just use standardized unit letters? e.g. {-1d}
> > > means one day ago. Then we
Stefan Sperling wrote on Fri, May 20, 2011 at 17:26:39 +0200:
> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 04:28:55PM +0200, Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
> > On 05/18/2011 09:38 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > >On 17.05.2011 11:36, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > >>On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:45:50AM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 04:28:55PM +0200, Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
> On 05/18/2011 09:38 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> >On 17.05.2011 11:36, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> >>On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:45:50AM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> >>>Any comments or objections?
> >>Neels didn't like the arbitrary "ro
On 05/18/2011 09:38 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
On 17.05.2011 11:36, Stefan Sperling wrote:
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:45:50AM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
Any comments or objections?
Neels didn't like the arbitrary "round to 00:00 of next day" rules
and everyone in the hackathon room seems to ag
On 19.05.2011 18:29, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>>> Or just not use the feature?
>>>
>>> (It is, after all, completely undocumented for a reason.)
>>>
>> Lack of time on stsp's side?
> We decided to treat is as an undocumented easter egg.
I can actually agree with that part. Just imagine finding an ea
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 05:05:15PM +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Hyrum K Wright wrote on Thu, May 19, 2011 at 16:51:27 +0200:
> > 2011/5/19 Branko Čibej :
> > > So someone who's not a native English speaker (or a fair imitation like
> > > myself)
I am not a native English speaker either.
And you
Hyrum K Wright wrote on Thu, May 19, 2011 at 16:51:27 +0200:
> 2011/5/19 Branko Čibej :
> > On 19.05.2011 15:38, Greg Stein wrote:
> >> 2011/5/19 Branko Čibej :
> >>> On 19.05.2011 11:53, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 09:38:55PM +0200, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > Why? That d
Greg Stein wrote on Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:41:11 -0400:
> 2011/5/19 Branko Čibej :
> > On 19.05.2011 15:38, Greg Stein wrote:
> >> 2011/5/19 Branko Čibej :
> >>> On 19.05.2011 11:53, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 09:38:55PM +0200, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > Why? That doesn
2011/5/19 Branko Čibej :
> On 19.05.2011 15:38, Greg Stein wrote:
>> 2011/5/19 Branko Čibej :
>>> On 19.05.2011 11:53, Stefan Sperling wrote:
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 09:38:55PM +0200, Branko Čibej wrote:
> Why? That doesn't make sense. Second of all, all these wordy aliases are
> just
2011/5/19 Branko Čibej :
> On 19.05.2011 15:38, Greg Stein wrote:
>> 2011/5/19 Branko Čibej :
>>> On 19.05.2011 11:53, Stefan Sperling wrote:
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 09:38:55PM +0200, Branko Čibej wrote:
> Why? That doesn't make sense. Second of all, all these wordy aliases are
> just
On 19.05.2011 15:38, Greg Stein wrote:
> 2011/5/19 Branko Čibej :
>> On 19.05.2011 11:53, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 09:38:55PM +0200, Branko Čibej wrote:
Why? That doesn't make sense. Second of all, all these wordy aliases are
just shorthands for real timestamps a
Branko Čibej wrote on Thu, May 19, 2011 at 14:35:01 +0200:
> On 19.05.2011 11:53, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 09:38:55PM +0200, Branko Čibej wrote:
> >> Why? That doesn't make sense. Second of all, all these wordy aliases are
> >> just shorthands for real timestamps anyway --
2011/5/19 Branko Čibej :
> On 19.05.2011 11:53, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 09:38:55PM +0200, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>> Why? That doesn't make sense. Second of all, all these wordy aliases are
>>> just shorthands for real timestamps anyway -- by your reasoning, you
>>> could eli
On 19.05.2011 11:53, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 09:38:55PM +0200, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> Why? That doesn't make sense. Second of all, all these wordy aliases are
>> just shorthands for real timestamps anyway -- by your reasoning, you
>> could eliminate all of them.
> There is
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 09:38:55PM +0200, Branko Čibej wrote:
> Why? That doesn't make sense. Second of all, all these wordy aliases are
> just shorthands for real timestamps anyway -- by your reasoning, you
> could eliminate all of them.
There is otherwise no way to express dates relative to the
On 17.05.2011 11:36, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:45:50AM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>> Any comments or objections?
> Neels didn't like the arbitrary "round to 00:00 of next day" rules
> and everyone in the hackathon room seems to agree. So "one day ago"
> is now the same
Stefan Sperling wrote on Tue, May 17, 2011 at 13:21:20 +0200:
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 01:13:31PM +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Offline I advocated for 'N days ago' to be rounded up/down to the full day.
>
> I'll commit it now without rounding and without the "now" keyword.
> We can then bikesh
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 01:13:31PM +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Offline I advocated for 'N days ago' to be rounded up/down to the full day.
I'll commit it now without rounding and without the "now" keyword.
We can then bikeshed about extending it.
Offline I advocated for 'N days ago' to be rounded up/down to the full day.
Stefan Sperling wrote on Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:36:55 +0200:
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:45:50AM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > Any comments or objections?
>
> Neels didn't like the arbitrary "round to 00:00 of next
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:45:50AM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> Any comments or objections?
Neels didn't like the arbitrary "round to 00:00 of next day" rules
and everyone in the hackathon room seems to agree. So "one day ago"
is now the same as "24 hours ago".
I also dropped the "yesterday" k
Back before 1.0 we had a date parser written in Yacc that could
parse all sorts of fancy strings such as "yesterday", "last month",
or "two fortnights ago". This was dropped in r848401/r848402 because
of maintenance concerns. The parser was missing some desired features
and also did a lot more than
27 matches
Mail list logo
