"log -rdate:" and "log -cdate:"

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Martin Pool <mbp at canonical.com>
> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 18:56:19 +1100
> Cc: bazaar at lists.canonical.com
> 
> We could change this in either of two ways (at least):
> 
> - choose a single revision, but a bit later, so it is the revision on
> that date that touched that file
> - we could make this a different kind of revno that actually implies a
> range; this somewhat changes the algebra of combining them but it
> could still work
> 
> or
> - we could have a different approach that logs everything then filters
> by date; this would make more sense if you consider there could be
> interesting revisions within non-mainline revisions; and that dates
> are not guaranteed to run in order

I'm okay with whatever you think is best.  All I need is the way to
see revisions that changed a certain file on a given date.

> > But why did I need to extend the date range by one more day,
> > when both changes show 2010-10-08 in the log results?
> 
> I suspect, without checking the code, this is because we're filtering
> in your timezone but by default showing the timestamps in the tz in
> which they were committed

IMO, that's an inconsistency that should be fixed.  As a matter of
fact, I took the date from a ChangeLog entry, which is in UTC.

> (you can change that.)

How?

> > To summarize:
> >
> >  . there doesn't seem to be a good way of finding revisions of a
> >    single file when only a date is known; -rdate: seems to be useful
> >    mainly for showing revisions without selecting a file
> >
> >  . there appears to be some issue with the date, in that dates shown
> >    in "bzr log"s output are somewhat inconsistent with -rdate:,
> >    perhaps due to time-zone issues
> >
> > Did I miss something?  If not, can we have a more user-friendly way
> > for this use-case, please?
> 
> I think that's correct.  I think the first has a bug report already.

Let me know if I should do something to help in advancing fix of these
issues.

Thanks.