Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add more documentation about the RFC 2822 obsolete date format #1267

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Sep 8, 2023

Conversation

pitdicker
Copy link
Collaborator

I had some notes about the relation between RFC 822, RFC 2822 and RFC 5322, and why single-letter timezones no longer carry a meaning.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 7, 2023

Codecov Report

Merging #1267 (674ad9e) into 0.4.x (8509da4) will decrease coverage by 0.01%.
Report is 2 commits behind head on 0.4.x.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##            0.4.x    #1267      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   91.40%   91.40%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          38       38              
  Lines       16933    16932       -1     
==========================================
- Hits        15478    15477       -1     
  Misses       1455     1455              
Files Changed Coverage Δ
src/datetime/mod.rs 86.23% <ø> (-0.03%) ⬇️

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

@pitdicker pitdicker merged commit 77d0bec into chronotope:0.4.x Sep 8, 2023
37 checks passed
@pitdicker pitdicker deleted the rfc2822_obsolete_format branch September 8, 2023 09:44
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants