> = Comment - Entry #13 by dtremea on Dec 13, 2006 12:19 pm
> sorry for not have fixed this on the last weekend as I promised, but my
> goal is to do it later today. In fact, I have 80% from it done, which
> means we add the ISO8601 support and *keep* the backward compatibility.
I'm sorry if my reversions today on the 2.9 and 2.10 branchs
make your merge harder. :(
> Some remarks: about the docstrings on tests, yep, I'm aware of it,
> that's why I changed them to comments (and not the other way round).
My bad -- I think I was looking at a reversed diff.
> About the cosmetical code changes, sorry for that, but I just
> standardized with the remaining code from the same file... :-)
I will assume that was my bad, too.
In general, I would avoid committing "cleanup" changes like those
at the same time as "substantive" changes, and would only commit such "cleanups" on the trunk.
> = Comment - Entry #13 by dtremea on Dec 13, 2006 12:19 pm
> sorry for not have fixed this on the last weekend as I promised, but my
> goal is to do it later today. In fact, I have 80% from it done, which
> means we add the ISO8601 support and *keep* the backward compatibility.
I'm sorry if my reversions today on the 2.9 and 2.10 branchs
make your merge harder. :(
> Some remarks: about the docstrings on tests, yep, I'm aware of it,
> that's why I changed them to comments (and not the other way round).
My bad -- I think I was looking at a reversed diff.
> About the cosmetical code changes, sorry for that, but I just
> standardized with the remaining code from the same file... :-)
I will assume that was my bad, too.
In general, I would avoid committing "cleanup" changes like those
at the same time as "substantive" changes, and would only commit such "cleanups" on the trunk.