From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Sean" Subject: Re: git-rev-list in local commit order Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 15:57:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4971.10.10.10.24.1116187076.squirrel@linux1> References: <4127.10.10.10.24.1116107046.squirrel@linux1> <1116186533.11872.152.camel@tglx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun May 15 21:58:08 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DXPFM-0006rZ-OU for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sun, 15 May 2005 21:57:57 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261152AbVEOT6A (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 May 2005 15:58:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261211AbVEOT6A (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 May 2005 15:58:00 -0400 Received: from simmts6.bellnexxia.net ([206.47.199.164]:40395 "EHLO simmts6-srv.bellnexxia.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261152AbVEOT55 (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 May 2005 15:57:57 -0400 Received: from linux1 ([69.156.111.46]) by simmts6-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.10 201-253-122-130-110-20040306) with ESMTP id <20050515195757.WPKH11463.simmts6-srv.bellnexxia.net@linux1>; Sun, 15 May 2005 15:57:57 -0400 Received: from linux1 (linux1.attic.local [127.0.0.1]) by linux1 (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j4FJvtxZ007358; Sun, 15 May 2005 15:57:56 -0400 Received: from 10.10.10.24 (SquirrelMail authenticated user sean) by linux1 with HTTP; Sun, 15 May 2005 15:57:56 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <1116186533.11872.152.camel@tglx> To: tglx@linutronix.de User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.4-2 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Sun, May 15, 2005 3:48 pm, Thomas Gleixner said: > On Sat, 2005-05-14 at 17:44 -0400, Sean wrote: >> Attached is a preliminary hackish patch to sort git-rev-list in local >> commit order. > > +unsigned long sha1_local_date(const unsigned char *sha1) > +{ > + struct stat st; > + if (find_sha1_file(sha1, &st)) > + return st.st_mtime; > + return 0; > +} > > Do you really want to base workflow and history information on file > times ? The local commit order just isn't all that important in many situations. And for situations where it is important, this proposal seems completely adequate. Mind you, the patch in question is complete crap. > File times are local and completely error prone in distributed > environments. I disagree that they're inherently error prone, steps can be taken to make them as secure as you desire. Also, many people just will not care about this local-commit-time as they will simply be tracking a remote repository. For applications like David Woodhouse's need to present the newest commits first on a web page, this is _completely_ adequate. I've yet to see an intended use for this information that isn't completely handled by this proposal. Afterall, most people using git are getting by just fine without such a facility today. Regards, Sean