From 896f42ea15365817eee04b8a0c6d4dd23172025f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "vrs+annex@ea5fa24dbb279be61a8e50adb638bf8366300717" Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 02:11:41 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Added a comment --- ...omment_3_7bf423111829ec6b358c6925d012a3e2._comment | 11 +++++++++++ 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/bugs/file_modification_time_should_be_stored_in_exactly_one_metadata_field/comment_3_7bf423111829ec6b358c6925d012a3e2._comment diff --git a/doc/bugs/file_modification_time_should_be_stored_in_exactly_one_metadata_field/comment_3_7bf423111829ec6b358c6925d012a3e2._comment b/doc/bugs/file_modification_time_should_be_stored_in_exactly_one_metadata_field/comment_3_7bf423111829ec6b358c6925d012a3e2._comment new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..8c5973f255 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/bugs/file_modification_time_should_be_stored_in_exactly_one_metadata_field/comment_3_7bf423111829ec6b358c6925d012a3e2._comment @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +[[!comment format=mdwn + username="vrs+annex@ea5fa24dbb279be61a8e50adb638bf8366300717" + nickname="vrs+annex" + avatar="http://cdn.libravatar.org/avatar/74219abcec6eece8e2c9d4351c2c912c" + subject="comment 3" + date="2018-04-05T02:11:41Z" + content=""" +If pure functions were part of the design anyway, why not avoid adding derived fields and introduce functions like `year()` etc instead? The semantics would be obvious (you don't assign to a function call) and existing workflows involving the year field would keep working. + +As for editing the timestamp in general, I'll post an answer to later that should address this. +"""]]