Re: [PATCH] date.c: allow ISO 8601 reduced precision times

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 1:16 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Phil Hord <phil.hord@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >
> >> Do you have any suggestions about how I can better alleviate your
> >> concerns?  I don't think there are real regressions here and I tried
> >> to explain why.
> >
> > Other than "including it in a released version and waiting for
> > people to scream", I do not think there is.  The "next" branch was
> > meant to be a test ground for these new features by letting
> > volunteer users to use it in their everyday development, and the
> > hope was that we can catch regressions by cooking risky topics
> > longer than usual in there, but we haven't been very successful, I
> > have to say.
> >
> > Thanks.  Let's queue it and see what happens.
>
> Actually, let's not queue it as-is, because it seems to break many
> tests for me.  I won't have time to take further look myself before
> later in the week when I come back online again, though.

Oh, wow. For me as well.  I thought I ran all the tests before
finishing up, but I guess I was too focused on the single test module.
I apologize for the oversight.



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux