Re: Millisecond precision in timestamps?

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Thomas Berg <merlin66b@gmail.com> writes:

> If roundtripping to other version control systems is an argument,
> adding sub-second timestamps could potentially create as many problems
> as it solves. For example, I've been using the hg-git bridge, and it
> supports roundtripping between git and mercurial today (for most repos
> I've tried anyway). I may have missed something,...

What I left unsaid was that the use of extra subsecond resolution is
optional.  I do not see any reason for *us* to create commits with
subsecond resolution when we are writing native commits.  Only when
the end users and/or import tools tell us to.  If you assume all
foreign SCM you care about have at least one second resolution, you
would be fine.

Having said all that, given that this, if implemented, would not be
used by us but only for recording other people's times, and that the
set of meta information we record in our history will never be
superset of everybody else's anyway, I do not see much point in
supporting subsecond timestamps in the first place.