Understanding why Git defaults to show author date and not committer date

Understanding why Git defaults to show author date and not committer date

[Omri Sarig]

Hello,

I've had several discussions with fellow developers, and I found out that many
of them are somewhat confused about the date shown when they look at the Git
log.
In our main workflow, we are mostly using a rebase strategy to get commits into
a main branch, so I can understand their confusion when looking at the default
log view - dates are moving back and forth, and it's not possible to know when a
commit was introduced to the main branch.
I understand this is one of many workflows, but in my personal experience, I
find that in most workflows, the committer date is the one that I find relevant.

Within our teams, we usually end up creating aliases/updating configuration to
make the Git log show the committer date by default, and find that it makes the
log/commit viewing easier to understand for non-super-users.

I understand the distinction between the 2 formats, and I can see the utility of
both. I'm curious about the decision to show the author date and not the
committer date as default one in Git commands.
Are there some workflows where the author date is more relevant, or is that
mostly a legacy decision?

I'd be interested in hearing about workflows where the author date is the more
useful one, as I use the committer date almost always.

I've tried to look for information regarding this decision (both in the
documentation and through the mailing list), but couldn't find any discussion.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts,
/ Omri Sarig

Re: Understanding why Git defaults to show author date and not committer date

[Jeff King]

On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 05:08:11PM +0200, Omri Sarig wrote:

> I understand the distinction between the 2 formats, and I can see the utility of
> both. I'm curious about the decision to show the author date and not the
> committer date as default one in Git commands.
> Are there some workflows where the author date is more relevant, or is that
> mostly a legacy decision?
> 
> I'd be interested in hearing about workflows where the author date is the more
> useful one, as I use the committer date almost always.

In a workflow based on mailing patches, the committer date is usually
much less interesting. It is "when the maintainer happened to pick up
your patch", as opposed to when you wrote it. Likewise, we show the
author's name by default, not the committer's.

-Peff

Re: Understanding why Git defaults to show author date and not committer date

[Junio C Hamano]

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 05:08:11PM +0200, Omri Sarig wrote:
>
>> I understand the distinction between the 2 formats, and I can see the utility of
>> both. I'm curious about the decision to show the author date and not the
>> committer date as default one in Git commands.
>> Are there some workflows where the author date is more relevant, or is that
>> mostly a legacy decision?
>> 
>> I'd be interested in hearing about workflows where the author date is the more
>> useful one, as I use the committer date almost always.
>
> In a workflow based on mailing patches, the committer date is usually
> much less interesting. It is "when the maintainer happened to pick up
> your patch", as opposed to when you wrote it. Likewise, we show the
> author's name by default, not the committer's.

True.  In mailing list workflow, the author date recorded is usually
the date that the patch was sent to the mailing list, which may be
later than when you wrote it, but is much more relevant as that is
closer to the time when anybody other than the author have seen the
patch for the first time.

Re: Understanding why Git defaults to show author date and not committer date

[Oswald Buddenhagen]

On Sat, Jul 11, 2026 at 01:54:02PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
>> In a workflow based on mailing patches, the committer date is usually
>> much less interesting. It is "when the maintainer happened to pick up
>> your patch", as opposed to when you wrote it.
>
>True.  In mailing list workflow, the author date recorded is usually
>the date that the patch was sent to the mailing list, which may be
>later than when you wrote it, but is much more relevant as that is
>closer to the time when anybody other than the author have seen the
>patch for the first time.
>
but why do you consider this more interesting than when the commit 
actually hit the target branch? why would most people exploring branch 
histories care more for the "meta" surrounding submissions rather than 
when they actually started to matter to users?

>> Likewise, we show the author's name by default, not the committer's.
>
which should be kept, because the committer identity is much less 
interesting in most workflows.

showing author name + committer date by default may seem unclean, but 
it's what is most *useful*.

if the change was to be made, it would have to be visualized to avoid 
confusion. i kinda like s/Date:/Stamp:/ because it's short and the 
metaphor kinda makes sense. "Committed:" seems worse. format=fuller's 
"CommitDate" seems even worse in this context.

the new default should get a new somewhat arbitrary name like "compact".
note that i'm not worried about backwards compatibility, as somebody 
parsing the porcelain output without even specifying a format doesn't 
deserve differently.