duplicity-team team mailing list archive
Mailing list archive
Re: [Question #660463]: Interest in refactoring dup_time.py
Question #660463 on Duplicity changed:
Status: Open => Answered
edso proposed the following answer:
On 11/11/2017 14:53, Konstantin Schubert wrote:
> Question #660463 on Duplicity changed:
> Konstantin Schubert gave more information on the question:
> I've got a few more questions. If the mailing list isn't the right place for them, let me know.
> First off, I want to say that I have high respect of code that is time
> proven and works, even if it's not written in the latest greatest
> language :)
> That being said, I still think that I'd be able to make some careful
> My first question:
> Would it be acceptable to raise the minimum required python version to 2?
> Second question:
> My impression is that the dup_time module is mainly used for parsing file names into an internal time representation and vice versa. Therefore, no matter what changes I make here, I'll have to be very careful not to break backwards compatibility in parsing the file names.
> I'd probably start working by writing tests for all the file name formats that need to be covered and then ask here on the list for confirmation that the tests are exhaustive.
> Afterwards, I can start work on refactoring the module by making use of datetime and pytz.
> Does that sound reasonable?
it does. i am wondering tough why you want to rewrite a perfectly
functioning part of duplicity when there are bugs and feature request en
masse on launchpad already. just a tought.
You received this question notification because your team duplicity-team
is an answer contact for Duplicity.