On Wed, 2012-02-29 at 14:53 +0100, Michael Stahl wrote:
> pushed the fix plus a unit test for leap years to master,
^
Lovely ! :-)
Thanks,
Michael.
--
michael.me...@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
___
On 29/02/12 04:10, Kohei Yoshida wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> The attached patch fixes a bug in our current leap year calculation
> code. It is based on the algorithm posted on wikipedia[1], and seems to
> correctly identify year 2000 as a leap year.
>
> Without this, Calc would convert 2000-2-29 into
Hi Kohei,
On Tuesday, 2012-02-28 22:10:10 -0500, Kohei Yoshida wrote:
> The attached patch fixes a bug in our current leap year calculation
> code. It is based on the algorithm posted on wikipedia[1], and seems to
> correctly identify year 2000 as a leap year.
Sure, count my sign-off in for all
On 02/29/2012 04:10 AM, Kohei Yoshida wrote:
The attached patch fixes a bug in our current leap year calculation
code. It is based on the algorithm posted on wikipedia[1], and seems to
correctly identify year 2000 as a leap year.
Without this, Calc would convert 2000-2-29 into 1899-12-30 on loa
Hi there,
The attached patch fixes a bug in our current leap year calculation
code. It is based on the algorithm posted on wikipedia[1], and seems to
correctly identify year 2000 as a leap year.
Without this, Calc would convert 2000-2-29 into 1899-12-30 on load,
which is ugly but very hard to de
