Author: gastonrabbit
Description:
Rather than limiting users to pre-selected date formats, perhaps users could
specify their own formats using the PHP date() format (as in phpBB) or a similar
format.
Version: unspecified
Severity: enhancement
Description
Description
Details
Details
- Reference
- bz1784
Related Objects
Related Objects
Event Timeline
Comment Actions
Should be pretty easy with the new prefs (just change 'radio' to 'selectorother'), just need a way to validate date inputs.
Comment Actions
I've merged the newer tasks into this older task. It feels incredibly rude to me to let a feature request like this sit for 11 years and then tell the author that it's a duplicate of a newer task.
Comment Actions
Merging / duping to task with longest and/or most recent discussion and/or most details is common practice...
(btw: Asking and not waiting for the answer but taking an action instead feels a bit rude to me OTOH...)
Comment Actions
Why would merging to the most recent discussion make sense? So we can completely disregard and bury all past discussions? You can copy and paste relevant details or comments to the older task if necessary.
(btw: Asking and not waiting for the answer but taking an action instead feels a bit rude to me OTOH...)
It's the wiki process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle. You boldly merged this task into a newer task and I reverted. Now we can discuss.
Comment Actions
Ie. because newest discussions reflect the actual status quo of the software?
(btw: Asking and not waiting for the answer but taking an action instead feels a bit rude to me OTOH...)
It's the wiki process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle. You boldly merged this task into a newer task and I reverted. Now we can discuss.
You first asked. Then you didn't even wait for a reply and perform action. This is not Wikipedia btw.
Anyway, not worth to discuss this further as long as at least one is opened and all others merged into that one.
Comment Actions
Sure, the question was somewhat rhetorical. And/or I answered it myself. :-)
I say "it's rude to merge older tasks into newer tasks" and you reply "this is common practice" and I get confused because you're refuting an argument that I didn't make. Something can be both rude and common.
I say "my actions are part of a behavior pattern called bold, revert, discuss" and you reply that "Phabricator is not Wikipedia" and I get confused because you're again refuting an argument that I didn't make. Simply because something is discussed on Wikipedia does not make it inapplicable to other environments. (This pattern is also documented on Meta-Wiki, for what it's worth: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bold,_revert,_discuss.)