nodejs-dateformat: Steven Levithan's excellent dateFormat() function for Node.js, which provides a simple way to format dates and times according to a user-specified mask.
Review Request:[[BR]] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977118
(I've actually also already packaged the original project as "dateformat" in Fedora.)
Life would be simple if nodejs-dateformat was just a repackaging of the original project for Node.js (and I could subsequently just symlink the file), but the authors have made enough changes that it's really a fork.
Original project (~120 lines):[[BR]] http://blog.stevenlevithan.com/archives/date-time-format [[BR]] http://stevenlevithan.com/assets/misc/date.format.js
Forked project (~180 lines):[[BR]] https://github.com/felixge/node-dateformat [[BR]] https://raw.github.com/felixge/node-dateformat/4c49d1a0582c/lib/dateformat.js
This is the largest block of new code, though there are also a few other scattered changes:[[BR]] https://github.com/felixge/node-dateformat/blob/master/lib/dateformat.js#L25-61
Full diff from original:[[BR]] http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/dateformat.diff
The Readme.md lists the following changes:
Removed the Date.prototype.format method. Sorry folks, but extending native prototypes is for suckers. Added a module.exports = dateFormat; statement at the bottom Added the placeholder N to get the ISO 8601 numeric representation of the day of the week
Date.prototype.format
module.exports = dateFormat;
N
I don't think it would be possible to use the original as a drop-in replacement. There are also already >100 other Node modules that depend on nodejs-dateformat and expect the new behaviour. I've contacted the original author by email to ask whether he would consider integrating the changes, and waiting for a reply. (NB: The original has not seen any changes in 6 years.)
I would therefore like to request a bundling exception for nodejs-dateformat and would appreciate any advice.
We discussed this at today's meeting. We lacked quorum to finish a vote but the members who were present considered this to be a fork and therefore allowed. Current voting:
+1: tibbs, RemiFedora, toshio, limburgher
We'd need one more +1 to pass this. spot, racor, geppetto, SmootherFr0gZ, and Rathann have nt voted yet.
@spot, racor, geppetto, SmootherFr0gZ, and Rathann: Just a reminder that one more +1 from any of you would let this pass and we could close the ticket.
+1
this request is approved. jamielinux, as this is a fork there's no need for a virtual provide.
Metadata Update from @toshio: - Issue assigned to toshio
Login to comment on this ticket.