Bug#17621: PROPOSED]: About versions based on dates
Hi,
>>"Guy" == Guy Maor <maor@debian.org> writes:
Guy> Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com> writes:
Marco> What about 960501? It's shorter.
Marco> (This format has NO Y2K problems.)
>>
>> Really? When is 010501?
Guy> That version would be written as 20010501. Marco was just pointing
Guy> out that abbreviating 19xx as xx doesn't always cause y2k problems.
I see. If you look at the bug report, you shall see that that
was indeed the original proposal, 9XMMDD and 200XMMDD, and Ian
objected to this saying that it just made the rules more coomplex,
and that would be reflected in the comparison routines as well.
I agreed with Ian: I see no reason to have two different sets
of rules based on whether it is the 20th or twnety first century
dates we are talking about (and we can't evenr codify 19th century
dates with the abbreviated proposal)
manoj
--
You can rent this space for only $5 a week.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
Reply to: