Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] Make "local" orthogonal to date format

2015-09-02 Thread John Keeping
On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 06:44:31PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > [1] I do think the error message for "relative-local is nonsense" could > perhaps be more explanatory, but I couldn't come up with any better > wording. But if you have ideas, feel free to switch it. My only suggestion would be

Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] Make "local" orthogonal to date format

2015-09-02 Thread Jeff King
On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 08:48:26AM +0100, John Keeping wrote: > On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 06:44:31PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > [1] I do think the error message for "relative-local is nonsense" could > > perhaps be more explanatory, but I couldn't come up with any better > > wording. But

Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] Make "local" orthogonal to date format

2015-09-02 Thread Junio C Hamano
Jeff King writes: > On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 08:48:26AM +0100, John Keeping wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 06:44:31PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: >> > [1] I do think the error message for "relative-local is nonsense" could >> > perhaps be more explanatory, but I couldn't come

Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] Make "local" orthogonal to date format

2015-09-02 Thread Junio C Hamano
John Keeping writes: > In which case, should we just support it now? > > Normally I'd suggest banning controversial options on the basis that > it's easier in the future to allow something that was previously banned > than change the meaning of an options, but in this case I

Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] Make "local" orthogonal to date format

2015-09-02 Thread John Keeping
On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 08:16:59AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 08:48:26AM +0100, John Keeping wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 06:44:31PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > >> > [1] I do think the error message for "relative-local

Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] Make "local" orthogonal to date format

2015-09-02 Thread Junio C Hamano
John Keeping writes: > On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 08:16:59AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Jeff King writes: >> >> > I guess "relative dates do not depend on timezones, so -local is >> > meaningless" would be the closest thing. > > The discussion about

Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] Make "local" orthogonal to date format

2015-09-02 Thread John Keeping
On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 01:11:35PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > John Keeping writes: > > OTOH, I don't think there's any disagreement about what "relative-local" > > and "raw-local" would output were they supported, just whether they are > > useful. There doesn't seem to be

Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] Make "local" orthogonal to date format

2015-09-02 Thread Jeff King
On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 01:29:08PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > John Keeping writes: > > > In which case, should we just support it now? > > > > Normally I'd suggest banning controversial options on the basis that > > it's easier in the future to allow something that was

[PATCH v2 0/6] Make "local" orthogonal to date format

2015-09-01 Thread John Keeping
Jeff's first patch is unmodified but I've squashed the fixed currently on "pu" into the second. I also realised while adding the tests that "raw-local" is meaningless so I've modified the code to reject it in the same way as "relative-local". Jeff King (2): fast-import: switch crash-report

Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] Make "local" orthogonal to date format

2015-09-01 Thread Jeff King
On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 10:55:38PM +0100, John Keeping wrote: > Jeff's first patch is unmodified but I've squashed the fixed currently > on "pu" into the second. I also realised while adding the tests that > "raw-local" is meaningless so I've modified the code to reject it in the > same way as