Fair enough. Maybe I underestimated how much this might inconvenience users.
I have done what you wanted, and also left mm.dd.yyyy unmodified instead of changing it to mm/dd/yyyy as I initially thought made sense. I've also rebased the branch just in case so that it starts in the newest `master`. (Having a branch that jumps over one year of commits sounded potentially problematic.) > The only point to also make from the study is that one of the only two mm/dd/yyyy is a biiiig country in software so there is likely to get you much negativism if they lose it :-) Can't lose what you've never had - the MDY format currently supported by Geany is mm.dd.yyyy, not mm/dd/yyyy, which my PR originally "fixed" as well precisely because it's the format of choice in that country you mention, whereas mm.dd.yyyy doesn't seem to be used. So the big country that uses the mm/dd/yyyy format will have to wait for now. Maybe it makes sense to add that format along with dd/mm/yyyy, but that'll be in a future commit. I can do that and include that commit in this PR if you want, while we're at it - should I? Otherwise I can make a new PR to add the new date formats; whichever you prefer. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/geany/geany/pull/3570#issuecomment-2452952089 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: <geany/geany/pull/3570/c2452952...@github.com>
