Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On 2018-02-07 13:17:21 +1300, Richard Hector wrote: > On 07/02/18 02:18, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > On 2018-02-06 14:36:31 +1300, Richard Hector wrote: > >> The behaviour and policy of this list, when followed, does what I want. > > > > But the other users cannot know what you want if you do not

Re: Reply semantics (was Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag)

On 2018-02-06 10:47:30 -0500, The Wanderer wrote: > On 2018-02-06 at 10:00, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > On 2018-02-06 08:49:01 -0500, The Wanderer wrote: > > > >> On 2018-02-06 at 08:18, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > >>> This is not contradictory with the setting of > >>> "Mail-Followup-To:". >

coreutils date behavior (buggy) (was: Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag)

On 2018-02-06 13:07:53 -0300, Lucas Castro wrote: > Em 06-02-2018 10:38, Vincent Lefevre escreveu: > > On 2018-02-06 13:48:19 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > This is completely crazy: > > > > > > zira% date +%Y-%m-%d -d '2003-09-01 1 day ago + 1 month' > > > 2003-09-30 > > > zira% date

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On 07/02/18 02:18, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2018-02-06 14:36:31 +1300, Richard Hector wrote: >> On 06/02/18 02:11, Vincent Lefevre wrote: >>> You should set up a "Mail-Followup-To:" for that. This is entirely >>> your problem. >> >> I could do that, I'm sure (though I'm not sure how) - but I'd

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 22:55:51 -0500, The Wanderer wrote: > On 2018-02-05 at 13:47, Brian wrote: > > > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 10:24:14 -0500, The Wanderer wrote: > > >> If there's an ongoing discussion on that mailing list, and one of > >> the participants wants to draw in a third person who

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

Em 06-02-2018 10:38, Vincent Lefevre escreveu: On 2018-02-06 13:48:19 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: This is completely crazy: zira% date +%Y-%m-%d -d '2003-09-01 1 day ago + 1 month' 2003-09-30 zira% date +%Y-%m-%d -d '2003-09-01 1 day ago' 2003-08-31 zira% date +%Y-%m-%d -d '2003-08-31 + 1

Re: Reply semantics (was Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag)

On 2018-02-06 at 10:00, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2018-02-06 08:49:01 -0500, The Wanderer wrote: > >> On 2018-02-06 at 08:18, Vincent Lefevre wrote: >>> This is not contradictory with the setting of >>> "Mail-Followup-To:". >> >> Arguably, if the mailing list does not default replies back to

coreutils date behavior (buggy) (was: Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag)

On 2018-02-06 09:01:58 -0500, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > Just an attempt to get a more informative subject line--maybe > somebody can improve it. Corrected the subject. This is not related to bash at all (I'm under zsh, BTW). The GNU date utility comes from the coreutils. > On Tuesday, February

Re: Reply semantics (was Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag)

On 2018-02-06 08:49:01 -0500, The Wanderer wrote: > On 2018-02-06 at 08:18, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > On 2018-02-06 14:36:31 +1300, Richard Hector wrote: > >> On 06/02/18 02:11, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > >> > >>> You should set up a "Mail-Followup-To:" for that. This is > >>> entirely your

bash date behavior (buggy) (was: Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag)

Just an attempt to get a more informative subject line--maybe somebody can improve it. On Tuesday, February 06, 2018 08:49:39 AM Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 01:48:19PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > On 2018-02-05 09:39:12 -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > > Anyway, here's

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Tue 06 Feb 2018 at 16:38:53 (+1100), Erik Christiansen wrote: > […] is python that monstrosity which > lacks code block delimiting, and so uses indenting in lieu? Nice to see your criticism is so shallow. Cheers, David.

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 04:38:53PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote: On 05.02.18 10:02, Michael Stone wrote: IIRC it started out as a YACC function in the late 80s, and is now a Bison (YACC+GNU extensions) library. In that case it has a precise grammar, expressed in BNF (Backus Naur Form),

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Tue 06 Feb 2018 at 13:48:19 (+0100), Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2018-02-05 09:39:12 -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > (*) One specific shell script use case was "Get the last date of a given > > month." Now, obviously you can just set up an array of hard-coded month > > ending dates, and then

Reply semantics (was Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag)

(I should probably have changed the Subject: line in my initial reply, but I didn't expect it to spark an entire lengthy subthread like this. I apologize for having introduced thread-subject confusion.) On 2018-02-06 at 08:18, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2018-02-06 14:36:31 +1300, Richard Hector

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 01:48:19PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2018-02-05 09:39:12 -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > Anyway, here's what I came up with: > > > > lastday() { > > date +%Y-%m-%d -d "$1 1 day ago + 1 month" > > } > > But the exact meaning of "month" seems undocumented,

Email discussion (was: Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag)

Just changing the subject--maybe someone can make a more specific subject line. On Tuesday, February 06, 2018 08:34:11 AM Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2018-02-05 18:01:08 +, Brian wrote: > > Now you have problems (or could have). The first problem is that the > > "duplicates" are not

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On 2018-02-06 13:48:19 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > This is completely crazy: > > zira% date +%Y-%m-%d -d '2003-09-01 1 day ago + 1 month' > 2003-09-30 > zira% date +%Y-%m-%d -d '2003-09-01 1 day ago' > 2003-08-31 > zira% date +%Y-%m-%d -d '2003-08-31 + 1 month' > 2003-10-01 > > So, while

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On 2018-02-05 18:01:08 +, Brian wrote: > Now you have problems (or could have). The first problem is that the > "duplicates" are not duplicates because the headers are different. The > second problem is - which one do you wish to keep? The third problem > (related to the second one) is the

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On 2018-02-06 14:36:31 +1300, Richard Hector wrote: > On 06/02/18 02:11, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > You should set up a "Mail-Followup-To:" for that. This is entirely > > your problem. > > I could do that, I'm sure (though I'm not sure how) - but I'd rather > that someone intending to send me a

Re: [Was: Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On 2018-02-06 12:32:06 +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote: > On 05.02.18 09:39, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > (*) One specific shell script use case was "Get the last date of a given > > month." Now, obviously you can just set up an array of hard-coded month > > ending dates, and then write a function to

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On 2018-02-05 09:39:12 -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote: > (*) One specific shell script use case was "Get the last date of a given > month." Now, obviously you can just set up an array of hard-coded month > ending dates, and then write a function to determine whether the current > year is a leap year

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On 06.02.18 19:16, Richard Hector wrote: > On 06/02/18 18:38, Erik Christiansen wrote: > > Perl is the quintessential write-only language, which with a bit of luck > > will die out before it catches on > > Now you're getting to fighting talk ... :-) Whoops, forgot the <$0.02> ... markers. But

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On 2018-02-06, David Wright wrote: > > Ah, OK, the timestamps. There's no need to worry about that. Every > email I send to my wife, sitting at the same table, crosses the > Atlantic twice, typically in under a minute, and sometimes much less. > You're not on speaking

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On 2018-02-06, The Wanderer wrote: >> Which brings us back to - how does one know someone is subscribed to >> a Debian mailing list? > > I still fail to see why that's something we would need to know. > > Whether or not the person who posted a given message is subscribed

Re: [Was: Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

>> I promise you, people ARE using date -d '...' in shell scripts. >> LOTS of people. Hell, I've done it.(*) The Java Gregorian Calendar class was a delightful piece of software when I last used it (15 or so years ago). It does know the difference between the Julian and Gregorian calendars,

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On 06/02/18 18:38, Erik Christiansen wrote: > Perl is the quintessential write-only language, which with a bit of luck > will die out before it catches on Now you're getting to fighting talk ... :-) Richard signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On 05.02.18 10:02, Michael Stone wrote: > IIRC it started out as a YACC function in the late 80s, and is now a Bison > (YACC+GNU extensions) library. In that case it has a precise grammar, expressed in BNF (Backus Naur Form), though the lexer (I've always used lex together with yacc/bison) could

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On 2018-02-05 at 13:47, Brian wrote: > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 10:24:14 -0500, The Wanderer wrote: >> If there's an ongoing discussion on that mailing list, and one of >> the participants wants to draw in a third person who also >> subscribes, it's entirely appropriate to CC a reply to that third

Reply to sender, Reply to list (was: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag)

Richard Hector writes: > On 06/02/18 02:11, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > On 2018-02-05 01:53:02 +1300, Richard Hector wrote: > > You should set up a "Mail-Followup-To:" for that. For reference, this refers to one of two proposed (but never standardised) fields

Re: [Was: Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On 06/02/18 15:45, Michael Stone wrote: >> ... and how do you deal with locales that have changed definition over >> time? What was the country code for (eg) Prussia in 1752? It just gets >> painful ... > > Yes, this is more a novelty than anything. Even apart from changing > national borders,

Re: [Was: Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 03:36:53PM +1300, Richard Hector wrote: On 06/02/18 15:24, Michael Stone wrote: On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 12:32:06PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote: And for the far past, cal is superior; compare: $ cal -3 9 1752    August 1752  September 1752 October

Re: [Was: Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On 06/02/18 15:24, Michael Stone wrote: > On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 12:32:06PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote: >> And for the far past, cal is superior; compare: >> >> $ cal -3 9 1752 >>    August 1752  September 1752 October 1752 >> Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa  Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa  Su Mo

Re: [Was: Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 08:13:10PM -0600, David Wright wrote: But how would you deal with the simplest (to express) problem of all, that of $ date -d 1/2/18 Tue Jan 2 00:00:00 CST 2018 $ which would mean a battery of locale-specific rules. Yup. You'd need to accept something (probably

Re: [Was: Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 12:32:06PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote: And for the far past, cal is superior; compare: $ cal -3 9 1752 August 1752 September 1752 October 1752 Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa 1 1 2 14 15

Re: [Was: Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Tue 06 Feb 2018 at 12:32:06 (+1100), Erik Christiansen wrote: > On 05.02.18 09:39, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 04:04:34PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote: > > > All you describe is convenience for programmatic use. As I explained, > > > this parser is meant for interactive use.

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 23:39:30 (+), Brian wrote: > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 15:42:32 -0600, David Wright wrote: > > > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 19:37:45 (+), Brian wrote: > > > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 13:12:45 -0600, David Wright wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 18:01:08 (+), Brian

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On 06/02/18 02:11, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2018-02-05 01:53:02 +1300, Richard Hector wrote: >> On 05/02/18 01:44, Nicolas George wrote: PS - please don't cc me; I'm on the list. >>> Done this once, but I cannot promise I will think of it later. Document >>> your preference in your mail

[Was: Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On 05.02.18 09:39, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 04:04:34PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote: > > All you describe is convenience for programmatic use. As I explained, > > this parser is meant for interactive use. > > What on EARTH made you think THAT? The fuzzy grammar of the date

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 23:20:13 (+), Brian wrote: > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 15:45:54 -0600, David Wright wrote: > > > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 20:26:46 (+), Brian wrote: > > > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 13:13:18 -0600, David Wright wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 18:06:34 (+), Brian

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 17:07:35 (-0500), Greg Wooledge wrote: > > > Received: from david by alum with local (Exim 4.80) > > > (envelope-from ) > > > id 1eimCc-EV-Nv; Mon, 05 Feb 2018 13:13:18 -0600 > > > Is that meant to tell me something (as you wrote "but")? > >

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

Michael Stone: Anyway, if there was a simple solution someone would have implemented it by now. Indeed, that is the case; and it has been around for almost as long as those 20 years that you have been watching people use the GNU tool. In 2001, Paul Jarc invented a fairly simple notation

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 15:42:32 -0600, David Wright wrote: > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 19:37:45 (+), Brian wrote: > > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 13:12:45 -0600, David Wright wrote: > > > > > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 18:01:08 (+), Brian wrote: > > > > > > > > Now you have problems (or could have).

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 15:45:54 -0600, David Wright wrote: > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 20:26:46 (+), Brian wrote: > > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 13:13:18 -0600, David Wright wrote: > > > > > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 18:06:34 (+), Brian wrote: > > > > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 12:53:36 -0500, Greg

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

> > Received: from david by alum with local (Exim 4.80) > > (envelope-from ) > > id 1eimCc-EV-Nv; Mon, 05 Feb 2018 13:13:18 -0600 > Is that meant to tell me something (as you wrote "but")? Without knowing exactly what piece Brian was focusing on, I can at least

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 20:26:46 (+), Brian wrote: > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 13:13:18 -0600, David Wright wrote: > > > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 18:06:34 (+), Brian wrote: > > > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 12:53:36 -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 05:31:29PM +,

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 19:37:45 (+), Brian wrote: > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 13:12:45 -0600, David Wright wrote: > > > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 18:01:08 (+), Brian wrote: > > > > > > Now you have problems (or could have). The first problem is that the > > > "duplicates" are not duplicates

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 13:13:18 -0600, David Wright wrote: > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 18:06:34 (+), Brian wrote: > > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 12:53:36 -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 05:31:29PM +, Brian wrote: > > > > AfAIK. there isn't any way to determine whether

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 13:18:29 -0600, David Wright wrote: > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 19:00:16 (+), Brian wrote: > > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 08:32:32 -0600, David Wright wrote: > > > > > If it really worries you, the answer might be ~/.procmailrc and > > > > > > :0 Wh: $HOME/msgid.lock > > > |

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 13:12:45 -0600, David Wright wrote: > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 18:01:08 (+), Brian wrote: > > > > Now you have problems (or could have). The first problem is that the > > "duplicates" are not duplicates because the headers are different. The > > second problem is - which

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 19:00:16 (+), Brian wrote: > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 08:32:32 -0600, David Wright wrote: > > > If it really worries you, the answer might be ~/.procmailrc and > > > > :0 Wh: $HOME/msgid.lock > > | formail -D 19 $HOME/msgid.cache > > > > I used it for years. > > So

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 18:06:34 (+), Brian wrote: > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 12:53:36 -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 05:31:29PM +, Brian wrote: > > > AfAIK. there isn't any way to determine whether a message posted to > > > -user is from a non-subscriber. > > > > I

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 18:01:08 (+), Brian wrote: > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 16:09:11 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 09:44:43AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote: > > > On 2018-02-05 at 09:32, David Wright wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > > :0 Wh: $HOME/msgid.lock > > > > |

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 08:32:32 -0600, David Wright wrote: > If it really worries you, the answer might be ~/.procmailrc and > > :0 Wh: $HOME/msgid.lock > | formail -D 19 $HOME/msgid.cache > > I used it for years. So has Microsoft in Exchange. They use it to delete a user's mails silently.

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 10:24:14 -0500, The Wanderer wrote: > On 2018-02-05 at 10:09, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 09:44:43AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote: > > > >> On 2018-02-05 at 09:32, David Wright wrote: > > > > [...] > > > >> > :0 Wh: $HOME/msgid.lock > >> > | formail

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Monday, February 05, 2018 10:02:50 AM Michael Stone wrote: > On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 09:11:23AM -0500, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > >I assume (I know) that the license for date is some free / open source > >license that would allow you to incorporate the old code into a new > >function (probably

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

Thanks On Monday, February 05, 2018 09:46:54 AM Greg Wooledge wrote: > No need to guess. You can ask it. > > wooledg:~$ date --version

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 12:53:36 -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 05:31:29PM +, Brian wrote: > > AfAIK. there isn't any way to determine whether a message posted to > > -user is from a non-subscriber. > > I believe some people are using the one of the X-Spam* headers > and

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 16:09:11 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 09:44:43AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote: > > On 2018-02-05 at 09:32, David Wright wrote: > > [...] > > > > :0 Wh: $HOME/msgid.lock > > > | formail -D 19 $HOME/msgid.cache > > > > > > I used it for years. >

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 05:31:29PM +, Brian wrote: > AfAIK. there isn't any way to determine whether a message posted to > -user is from a non-subscriber. I believe some people are using the one of the X-Spam* headers and looking for the LDOSUBSCRIBER substring. Which is extremely

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 09:41:20 -0500, The Wanderer wrote: > On 2018-02-05 at 08:58, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > On 2018-02-05 08:40:27 -0500, The Wanderer wrote: > > > >> On 2018-02-05 at 08:11, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > >>> You should set up a "Mail-Followup-To:" for that. This is > >>>

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On 2018-02-05 at 10:09, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 09:44:43AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote: > >> On 2018-02-05 at 09:32, David Wright wrote: > > [...] > >> > :0 Wh: $HOME/msgid.lock >> > | formail -D 19 $HOME/msgid.cache >> > >> > I used it for years. > >> I don't

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 09:44:43AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote: > On 2018-02-05 at 09:32, David Wright wrote: [...] > > :0 Wh: $HOME/msgid.lock > > | formail -D 19 $HOME/msgid.cache > > > > I used it for years. > > I don't parse this well enough

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 09:11:23AM -0500, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: I assume (I know) that the license for date is some free / open source license that would allow you to incorporate the old code into a new function (probably with appropriate citation / credit) and then add / modify / delete

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 09:11:23AM -0500, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > I assume (I know) that the license for date is some free / open source > license No need to guess. You can ask it. wooledg:~$ date --version date (GNU coreutils) 8.26 Copyright (C) 2016 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On 2018-02-05 at 09:32, David Wright wrote: > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 08:40:27 (-0500), The Wanderer wrote: > >> On 2018-02-05 at 08:11, Vincent Lefevre wrote: >>> You should set up a "Mail-Followup-To:" for that. This is >>> entirely your problem. >> >> That does seem to be the trend and

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On 2018-02-05 at 08:58, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2018-02-05 08:40:27 -0500, The Wanderer wrote: > >> On 2018-02-05 at 08:11, Vincent Lefevre wrote: >>> You should set up a "Mail-Followup-To:" for that. This is >>> entirely your problem. >> >> That does seem to be the trend and position of

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 04:04:34PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote: > All you describe is convenience for programmatic use. As I explained, > this parser is meant for interactive use. What on EARTH made you think THAT? I promise you, people ARE using date -d '...' in shell scripts. LOTS of people.

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 08:40:27 (-0500), The Wanderer wrote: > On 2018-02-05 at 08:11, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > On 2018-02-05 01:53:02 +1300, Richard Hector wrote: > > > >> On 05/02/18 01:44, Nicolas George wrote: > > >>> Done this once, but I cannot promise I will think of it later. > >>>

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Monday, February 05, 2018 08:07:47 AM Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2018-02-04 08:22:23 -0500, Michael Stone wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 12:48:45AM +1300, Richard Hector wrote: > > > In which case, it should refuse to accept '4/2/2018' at all, right? > > > > It can't, that would break

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On 2018-02-05 08:40:27 -0500, The Wanderer wrote: > On 2018-02-05 at 08:11, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > On 2018-02-05 01:53:02 +1300, Richard Hector wrote: > >> My preference is for any personal replies addressed to me to go to > >> me, and I'd use the Reply-to header (as intended) if I needed it

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On 2018-02-05, Roberto C Sánchez wrote: >> >> It is not rare that the behavior of utilities change and break >> scripts. So, why not here, in particular for a good reason? >> > It is equally common, perhaps even more so, that buggy behavior is > retained (especially if it

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On 2018-02-05 at 08:11, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2018-02-05 01:53:02 +1300, Richard Hector wrote: > >> On 05/02/18 01:44, Nicolas George wrote: >>> Done this once, but I cannot promise I will think of it later. >>> Document your preference in your mail mail header, the standard >>> way, so

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On 2018-02-05 08:12:21 -0500, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 02:07:47PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > On 2018-02-04 08:22:23 -0500, Michael Stone wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 12:48:45AM +1300, Richard Hector wrote: > > > > In which case, it should refuse to accept

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 02:07:47PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2018-02-04 08:22:23 -0500, Michael Stone wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 12:48:45AM +1300, Richard Hector wrote: > > > In which case, it should refuse to accept '4/2/2018' at all, right? > > > > It can't, that would break

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On 2018-02-05 01:53:02 +1300, Richard Hector wrote: > On 05/02/18 01:44, Nicolas George wrote: > >> PS - please don't cc me; I'm on the list. > > Done this once, but I cannot promise I will think of it later. Document > > your preference in your mail mail header, the standard way, so that it > >

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On 2018-02-04 08:22:23 -0500, Michael Stone wrote: > On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 12:48:45AM +1300, Richard Hector wrote: > > In which case, it should refuse to accept '4/2/2018' at all, right? > > It can't, that would break working scripts. This is the heart of the > problem: we know the parser is

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 06:45:16PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote: David Wright (2018-02-04): $ TZ=London date Sun Feb 4 17:17:56 London 2018 $ TZ=UtterNonsense date Sun Feb 4 17:44:00 UtterNonsense 2018 The fact that it printed the name you put and not the official name of the time zone

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Sun 04 Feb 2018 at 18:45:16 (+0100), Nicolas George wrote: > David Wright (2018-02-04): > > $ TZ=London date > > Sun Feb 4 17:17:56 London 2018 > > $ TZ=UtterNonsense date > Sun Feb 4 17:44:00 UtterNonsense 2018 > > The fact that it printed the name you put and not the official name of >

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

David Wright (2018-02-04): > $ TZ=London date > Sun Feb 4 17:17:56 London 2018 $ TZ=UtterNonsense date Sun Feb 4 17:44:00 UtterNonsense 2018 The fact that it printed the name you put and not the official name of the time zone shows that the value is invalid. The correct value would have been:

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Sun 04 Feb 2018 at 17:44:54 (+0100), Thomas Schmitt wrote: > Hi, > > Mike Stone wrote: > > So it must be that "first tuesday" means > > the first tuesday in the month, but "second tuesday" sadly means the first > > tuesday plus one second because "second" has more than one meaning and I > >

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

ens are around. > > And what should human or machine think of my mail client's idea about > when you sent your mail ? > >Tomorrow Richard Hector Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag I don't know how you did that, but here: $ date --debug -d "Mon, 5 Feb 2018 01:25:36 +1300

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

Hi, Mike Stone wrote: > So it must be that "first tuesday" means > the first tuesday in the month, but "second tuesday" sadly means the first > tuesday plus one second because "second" has more than one meaning and I > wanted the other one. This illustrates the fundamental problem with natural

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 05:00:14PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote: Anyway, if you propose to remove the ability to write something like "2017-12-04 + 73 days", I veto as strongly as I can. The above is a very restricted subset of the date(1) grammar. Your confusion seems to stem from the fact

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

Michael Stone (2018-02-04): > Again, 20 years of dealing with people actually having trouble with this. > I'm really not making this up. Ok. Then please let me tell you that you have an observation bias: as (I suppose) a maintainer of the package, you have to deal with people who have a problem,

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 04:54:07PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote: I hope you enjoy the warmth of the burning straw men. Good day. Again, 20 years of dealing with people actually having trouble with this. I'm really not making this up. Mike Stone

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

Michael Stone (2018-02-04): > Heck, let's try some natural language right now: I hope you enjoy the warmth of the burning straw men. Good day. Regards, -- Nicolas George signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 04:04:34PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote: All you describe is convenience for programmatic use. As I explained, this parser is meant for interactive use. For interactive use, flexibility and natural language are a convenience. And you keep ignoring the fact that actual

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

Michael Stone (2018-02-04): > Well, it's not particularly convenient for people to have to constantly > wonder why the parser isn't doing what they think it should do. I've been > getting the questions and bug reports for 20 years, so trust me when I say > that people have trouble predicting the

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 02:27:00PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote: Michael Stone (2018-02-04): But a better parser would allow the same functionality, without being confusing, inconsistent, and hard to maintain. So yes, I'll stand by "complete misfeature". Can you describe what you mean by

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

Thomas Schmitt (2018-02-04): > And what should human or machine think of my mail client's idea about > when you sent your mail ? > >Tomorrow Richard Hector Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag That it should learn to parse timezones and take them into account. The date in Ri

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On 05/02/18 02:39, Thomas Schmitt wrote: > And what should human or machine think of my mail client's idea about > when you sent your mail ? > >Tomorrow Richard Hector Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag Ha! That I'm in NZ, of course. And I'm up too late. I never see that

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 08:22:23AM -0500, Michael Stone wrote: [...] > But a better parser would allow the same functionality, without > being confusing, inconsistent, and hard to maintain. So > yes, I'll stand by "complete

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

tor Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag Have a nice day :) Thomas

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

Michael Stone (2018-02-04): > But a better parser would allow the same functionality, without being > confusing, inconsistent, and hard to maintain. So yes, I'll stand by > "complete misfeature". Can you describe what you mean by "better parser" in more details? Beware that the "same

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 12:48:45AM +1300, Richard Hector wrote: In which case, it should refuse to accept '4/2/2018' at all, right? It can't, that would break working scripts. This is the heart of the problem: we know the parser is horrible, confusing, and irregular, but any attempt to

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Mon, 05 Feb 2018, Richard Hector wrote: > On 05/02/18 00:43, Nicolas George wrote: > > Richard Hector (2018-02-05): > >> #389251 (coreutils: date's -d switch doesn't honour locale) - it's quite > >> an old one. But I found another instance in which the same claim applies: > >> > >>

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On 05/02/18 01:44, Nicolas George wrote: >> PS - please don't cc me; I'm on the list. > Done this once, but I cannot promise I will think of it later. Document > your preference in your mail mail header, the standard way, so that it > is automatic and works for everybody, just like I did. Too bad

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

Richard Hector (2018-02-05): > Now that you mention it ... ls was where I started this adventure, > reading coreutils bugs :-) > > And you mention SI prefixes - IMHO, the output of ls should be extended > to actually show 'GiB' rather than 'G' where that is what is meant. > Assumptions that the

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On 05/02/18 01:32, Nicolas George wrote: > Richard Hector (2018-02-05): >> Actually, a good(ish) explanation is provided in a later bug, #729952: >> >> --8<-- >> The date parsing feature exists in Debian only for compatibility with >> upstream. It is a complete misfeature, and I would

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

Richard Hector (2018-02-05): > Actually, a good(ish) explanation is provided in a later bug, #729952: > > --8<-- > The date parsing feature exists in Debian only for compatibility with > upstream. It is a complete misfeature, and I would prefer that it didn't > exist at all. In an ideal

  1   2   >