moewew

Thank you very much.

I've been looking at this again. My main motivation here is that `biblatex` should not care whether a year came from a `year` field or from splitting up a `date`....

That would be a very elegant solution, but I think it would be problematic in case people use non-numeric `year` fields. For example ```latex \documentclass[british]{article} \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} \usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} \usepackage{babel} \usepackage{csquotes} \usepackage[style=authoryear,...

But doesn't copying `year` to `date` only if it is numeric leave us with the same dilemma? We'd still need both `year` and `date` in the `\DeclareLabeldate` declaration and `labeldatesource`...

Then the new `strangeyear` field suffers from the same issues. Ultimately my hope was to make the `year`/`date` issue as transparent as possible to `biblatex` styles.

Yes, I still think it is convenient to have a year coming from `year` treated the same as one coming from `date`. I can't really see a use in being...

@PLK Could this be a Biber issue? The `.bcf` look similar enough ```XML biyi2013 bili2013 Xi2013-- biyi2013 bili2013 Mi2013-- sortodrdenone.bib Xi2013-- Yi2014-- Li2014-- Mi2013-- ``` The only difference is the...

Ah right, I had forgotten about that, sorry. I guess it is documented behaviour then. It is a bit undesirable in this case, but it has been this way for...

@plk Any comment here? The CTAN upload process for `biblatex`+Biber seems to be a bit tricky to make sure that both packages are updated at the same time. Maybe that's...

Yes, I think if you leave it empty, CTAN will not post an announcement. From the next release onwards I will post a pre-release message in #842 and then you...