Re: How dangerous is --committer-date-is-author-date these days?

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

"Kristoffer Haugsbakk" <kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com> writes:

> As a Git user, I don’t understand why some people want to fiddle with
> this field in rewrite operations.  It’s very hidden (apparently you have
> to use something like `git log --format=fuller` to reveal it).

FWIW, as a Git user, I don't, either.

It is justifiable for "rebase -i" to be aware of the option, merely
because the underlying "git am" had it.  I think "--ignore-date"
option falls into a similar bucket, but it is of lessor evil between
the two (at least I can see a legitimate reasoning behind use of
that option).

> I can’t speak for power users.  But regular users?  Well I see questions
> about being very deliberate about setting this field on rewrite
> operations on StackOverflow (at least one time).  But I can only guess
> *why* they are particular about it (this part is often not explained).
> And I don’t know if they know the true “spirit” behind the field.

Very nicely said.  There _might_ be a legitimate reason to futz with
the committer date, but I do not think of a good reason why it makes
sense to replace it with the author date.  They are separate fields
because they mean different things---your mention of "true spirit"
is spot-on.

> That option was added to git-am(1).  So not a rewrite operation.  Rather
> a “lie” (as it was documented on that commit).

Yes, I do not offhand see a reason why the option should exist.  I
won't be the person who says "no, it is valuable, do not touch it"
if somebody proposes to drop it (from all places) at a major version
boundary.

Thanks.