[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: patch logs not rfc(2)822 compatible
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: patch logs not rfc(2)822 compatible |
Date: |
Wed, 26 May 2004 20:11:20 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.3.28i |
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 11:15:54AM -0500, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
> I think you may misunderstand the issue -- you're right that tla never
> uses the Date entry in the patch logs (instead it uses Standard-date),
> however, RFC 822 reserves Date as a header entry and also specifies the
> formatting it uses. Consequently, attempting to use a strict RFC 822
> parser to load a patch log will error when it finds the bad header entry.
It sounds like the bug is using a `strict RFC 822' parser to load
patch-logs...
-Miles
--
Run away! Run away!
- [Gnu-arch-users] patch logs not rfc(2)822 compatible, Jeremy Shaw, 2004/05/24
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] patch logs not rfc(2)822 compatible, Miles Bader, 2004/05/24
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] patch logs not rfc(2)822 compatible, Jeremy Shaw, 2004/05/24
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] patch logs not rfc(2)822 compatible, Miles Bader, 2004/05/24
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: patch logs not rfc(2)822 compatible, Matthew Dempsky, 2004/05/26
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: patch logs not rfc(2)822 compatible,
Miles Bader <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: patch logs not rfc(2)822 compatible, James Blackwell, 2004/05/29
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: patch logs not rfc(2)822 compatible, Cameron Patrick, 2004/05/29
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: patch logs not rfc(2)822 compatible, Miles Bader, 2004/05/29