Jeff King said the following on 23.02.2009 04:16:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 05:44:37PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:+ /* Otherwise, years. Centuries is probably overkill. */ + snprintf(timebuf, sizeof(timebuf), "%lu years ago", (diff + 183) / 365); + return timebuf;I agree this is an improvement. It irritated me, too. And I do not think this change falls into the category of bad backward incompatibility. I was hoping somebody would do a "N years M months", though.I thought about that, but I wanted to keep the maximum size down for column output (like in git-blame). Which is why I bumped the "use months" limit to 24 months instead of 12. And that limit can also be tweaked. Surely at some point there is a range where you no longer care about the months and "N years" has high enough resolution. But there is also a point where "N months" gets cumbersome (75 months is a more annoying than "around 6 years"). The question is whether we reach the "cumbersome" point before we reach the "don't care about months" point. Another option would to give higher resolution in number of years, like "3.5 years" or even "3.1 years".
And using shorter names for the units would be a no-go? "3y 2m ago" <-- "3 years ago" "3 months ago" "3 weeks ago" "3 days ago" "3 hours ago" "3 mins ago" <-- "3 secs ago" <-- -- .marius [@trolltech.com] 'if you know what you're doing, it's not research'
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
