Re: [RFC 5/5] Support 'master@2 hours ago' syntax

From: Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Date: May 17, 2006, 21:39 UTC
Message-ID: <20060517213908.GB30313@spearce.org>
In-Reply-To: <7v7j4kec3h.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:

Show 23 quoted lines

> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, 17 May 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >> 
> >> This does not allow '2006-05-17 00:00:00' as the timespec, and
> >> the documentation carefully avoids giving that example, but I
> >> think it is better to spell that limitation out.
> >
> > It doesn't? The "approxidate()" function should handle any reasonable date 
> > specifier, and the above is certainly more than reasonable.
> >
> > Why doesn't approxidate handle it?
> 
> The way I read the code is that get_sha1() would first do its
> magic at the first colon and feeds get_sha1_1() with prefix up
> to the first colon.  This gets passed down to get_sha1_basic()
> and what approxidate() is fed is the suffix of that prefix. It
> ends up seeing stuff between '@' and ':'.  I.e.
> 
> 	"master@2006-05-17 00:00:00:cache.h"
> 
> would ask for "00:00:cache.h" file in the "master" branch as of
> timestamp "2006-05-17 00".

Good catch. I'll see if I can deal with it later; probably early tomorrow morning before work. It may just come down to documenting this particular case as ambiguous and sure to parse the way you did not mean it to. :-)

I tested a bunch of other date formats but not the basic ISO. Argh. I'll send a test case soon for the expression parsing here, to be sure we pull stuff from the log as expected as well as parse the expression in a consistent way between releases. :-)

-- 
Shawn.