On March 30, 2021 5:10 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > To: Randall S. Becker <rsbecker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [Bug] worktree prune --expires > > "Randall S. Becker" <rsbecker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > This is pretty much just a quibble, but the command parser for > > worktree prune --expires should really report when a timestamp is > > invalid. For > > example: > > > > worktree prune --expires A:30 actually > > Assuming that you had "git" in front, and spelled "--expire" without the extra > 's': Yes, it was. I just transcribed it badly. > $ git worktree prune --expire no.such.date > fatal: malformed expiration date 'no.such.date' > > So apparently, "A:30" is taken as a expiration date that is not malformed. > > $ git rev-parse --since=A:30 --until=now > --max-age=1617138312 > --min-age=1617138312 > > Appears to show that A:30 is interpreted as the same as 'now', but thta is an > unlucky coincidence of the day. > > What happens in this case is that "A:" is discarded as cruft (just like dots are > discarded in "git log --since=8.days.ago"), and only the "30" takes effect of > filling an unspecified "date of the month" > [*1*]. And then the remainder is taken from the wallclock time, and that is > how the above "rev-parse" shows the same for A:30 and now, as it is the > 30th of the month for me right now. > > $ git rev-parse --since=A:31 --until=now > --max-age=1617224881 > --min-age=1617138481 > > gives me the same time tomorrow (for the same reason that today's 30th for > me). > > > [Footnote] > > *1* In A:30, there is no "date of month", "month", "year", etc. specified, so > we start from all unspecified, take the first number that is discovered (i.e. 30) > and fill "date of the month" > with it. Well, sounds a bit like an elbow test situation. The question is, what to do about it, if anything, I suppose. I didn't even put the "30" in context while testing. Oops.
