Re: suggested feature: "date --debug" - print date parsing diagnostics

[Jim Meyering]

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Pádraig Brady <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 15/08/16 02:36, Assaf Gordon wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 12, 2016, at 04:37, Pádraig Brady <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>
>>> There's precedent for .....2() versions of functions, like renameat2() etc.
>>> How about we pass an unsigned int flags, instead of bool, in case we ever
>>> need to extend in future?
>>
>> Attached a version with 'unsigned in flags' instead of 'bool debug'.
>
> Looks good and pushed.
> Note I updated the ChangeLog (with the attached script).
> That's best done right before push anyway to avoid conflicts.

Hi Pádraig,

That you are concerned about ChangeLog merge conflicts makes me think
you have not yet discovered Bruno Haible's fine git "merge" driver for
GNU style ChangeLog files. Just follow the instructions in
gnulib/lib/git-merge-changelog.c and you'll never have to worry about
spurious ChangeLog conflicts again.