On 4/27/06, Edgar Toernig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
IMNSHO, that's ridiculous. To fix a simple bug I shall write and
sign a copyright transfer and send that letter around half the
world??? If I had known that in advance I would have never written
the patch. Maybe a big notice on the home page
Paul Eggert wrote:
>
> Would you be willing to assign the copyright to the Free Software
> Foundation, so that we could install it in gnulib and coreutils?
My answer:
>
> I consider it as public domain - do with it whatever you want.
Paul:
>
> Thanks, but the change is complicated enough that we
Paul Eggert wrote:
>
> Edgar Toernig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Here's a patch.
>
> More important, that patch doesn't fix the bug that prompted the
> code being the way that it is now. Please see the thread rooted
> here:
>
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2005-07/msg00
Edgar Toernig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here's a patch.
That patch's revised documentation doesn't quite describe the code
code accurately, since "ago" isn't allowed just anywhere: it's allowed
only in some places.
More important, that patch doesn't fix the bug that prompted the
code being t
Paul Eggert wrote:
>
> I suppose you might be able to talk me into that, but in that case we
> need to fix the code and the documentation both. Any volunteers?
Here's a patch.
Ciao, ET.
diff -rup coreutils-5.94.orig/lib/getdate.y coreutils-5.94/lib/getdate.y
--- coreutils-5.94.orig/lib/getdate
The Wanderer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Am I correct in understanding that
> by "fix the documentation" you mean "rephrase the documentation such
> that it describes the old behaviour rather than the new"?
Yes.
___
Bug-coreutils mailing list
Bug-co
Paul Eggert wrote:
The Wanderer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
common English usage suggests that the old behaviour is correct.
I suppose you might be able to talk me into that, but in that case we
need to fix the code and the documentation both. Any volunteers?
I don't have the time at pres
> > however, i have a user who thinks the new behavior is broken and wont take
> > my
> > word for it :) ... so which behavior is the correct one ?
>
> The documentation suggests that the new behavior is correct.
Yeah, documentation and behaviour match but it changes decade
old semantics. Previ
The Wanderer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> common English usage suggests that the old behaviour is correct.
I suppose you might be able to talk me into that, but in that case we
need to fix the code and the documentation both. Any volunteers?
___
Bug
(#!%^&[EMAIL PROTECTED])
Paul Eggert wrote:
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
however, i have a user who thinks the new behavior is broken and
wont take my word for it :) ... so which behavior is the correct
one ?
The documentation suggests that the new behavior is correct.
Howev
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> however, i have a user who thinks the new behavior is broken and wont take my
> word for it :) ... so which behavior is the correct one ?
The documentation suggests that the new behavior is correct.
___
Bu
11 matches
Mail list logo
