Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
It's there: "Created: XX (minutes|hours|days) ago".
Original comment by maruel@chromium.org
on 7 Jan 2012 at 9:53
That is not a date. That's my point.
Having to expand every patch set individually to see the elapsed timespan, and
then having to mentally calculate the date for each one, is an unnecessary
hassle. It would be so much easier if it just showed the date.
Original comment by kpy@google.com
on 8 Jan 2012 at 12:24
You can open a separate issue to move it into user preference, because as a
developer I am not motivated to make the change by default I think M-A is -1 as
well. My preference is relative time references.
Original comment by techtonik@gmail.com
on 9 Jan 2012 at 8:31
Try attempting to correlate the progress of a code review with an e-mail
thread, and you'll immediately understand why it's valuable to provide the
actual date.
Original comment by kpy@google.com
on 9 Jan 2012 at 8:48
This specific user story is more clear. I believe the cause of the problem is
that Rietveld doesn't link emails in threads and you are forced to see how
separate mails correlate to review history. Is that it?
Original comment by techtonik@gmail.com
on 9 Jan 2012 at 10:00
Ah, yes, I think that would certainly go a long way toward solving that
particular case. I think dates would still be more broadly useful, though.
Original comment by kpy@google.com
on 10 Jan 2012 at 3:27
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
kpy@google.com
on 19 Dec 2011 at 9:45