After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 167279 - Date formats dd/mm/yy and dd/mm/yyyy should exist in all locales
Date formats dd/mm/yy and dd/mm/yyyy should exist in all locales
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 33229
Product: Gnumeric
Classification: Applications
Component: General
git master
Other All
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: Morten Welinder
Jody Goldberg
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2005-02-13 16:42 UTC by Adrian Custer
Modified: 2009-03-20 16:54 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Description Adrian Custer 2005-02-13 16:42:54 UTC 
By default the european format for dates are not one of the standard formats
offered by gnumeric. however, we offer a whole lot of other, much less common
options. In a US locale, we are *much* more likely to need european formatted
dates than some of the more obscure configurations, for example mmmmm-yy. Is
there any reason, not to provide the common european formats to everyone?
I'm thinking

dd-mm-yy
dd-mm-yyyy
dd/mm/yy
dd/mm/yyyy

and posibly others, I've been out of europe too long :-(

--adrian
Comment 1 Jon Kåre Hellan 2005-02-13 20:16:35 UTC 
dd.mm.yyyy
Comment 2 Morten Welinder 2005-02-14 18:49:34 UTC 
We are going to need code to determine if a string is a date and not simply by
matching against the current format.  Our number+timeofday matching is totally
hopeless.

The current format would set the default as to what d/m/y or m/d/y order we
should apply, but not much more.
Comment 3 Morten Welinder 2009-03-15 18:31:22 UTC 
Mine, all mine!

(For the record, the concerns of comment 2 are long fixed in 1.9.x)
Comment 4 Morten Welinder 2009-03-20 16:54:49 UTC 
While not exactly obvious, this is now a duplicate of bug 33229 and the
patch attached there fixes it.


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 33229 ***