Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag
- Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 09:11:23 -0500
- From: rhkramer@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: 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 working scripts. This is the heart of the
> > problem: we know the parser is horrible, confusing, and irregular, but
> > any attempt to change it will break lots of stuff that depends on the
> > current brokenness.
> It is not rare that the behavior of utilities change and break
> scripts. So, why not here, in particular for a good reason?
I'm not really going to answer the question, I think MIke Stone has answered
it for you. The way forward would seem (to me) to be to create a new date
function (ndate?) (or a new option to date) that provides the desired better
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 code as
OK, I will say one thing--I suspect this is something like the (forget what
they called it)--the year 2000 problem--there is code that people (and
companies depend on) that is so old that the maintainers are long gone, thus
breaking that old function wouild be a very bad thing.