From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Randall S. Becker" Subject: RE: feature request: git svn dommit --preserve-timestamps Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 22:12:54 -0400 Message-ID: <003501d1c386$c7b44850$571cd8f0$@nexbridge.com> References: <87a8iy6s4e.fsf@free.fr> <20160607000902.GA4445@dcvr.yhbt.net> <87ziqx5z9h.fsf@free.fr> <20160611013948.GA5793@dcvr.yhbt.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: To: "'Eric Wong'" , "=?utf-8?Q?'Peter_M=C3=BCnster'?=" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Jun 11 04:13:21 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1bBYQK-00036F-Fc for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 11 Jun 2016 04:13:20 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751004AbcFKCNN convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jun 2016 22:13:13 -0400 Received: from elephants.elehost.com ([216.66.27.132]:34397 "EHLO elephants.elehost.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750753AbcFKCNM convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jun 2016 22:13:12 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at elehost.com Received: from pangea (CPE00fc8d49d843-CM00fc8d49d840.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.238.43.115]) (authenticated bits=0) by elephants.elehost.com (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id u5B2D406073785 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 10 Jun 2016 22:13:05 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from rsbecker@nexbridge.com) In-Reply-To: <20160611013948.GA5793@dcvr.yhbt.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQIrld70405KQlF0dNxEwsyz+oCeHwH+lFepAp1aQ/0C/YSVeZ7zE/og Content-Language: en-ca Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Somewhen near June 10, 2016 9:40 PM, Eric Wong wrote: > Peter M=C3=BCnster wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 07 2016, Eric Wong wrote: > > > Peter M=C3=BCnster wrote: > > >> It would be nice, if timestamps could be preserved when rewritin= g > > >> the git-log. > > > > > > Unfortunately, last I checked (a long time ago!), explicitly sett= ing > > > revprops might require SVN administrators to enable the feature f= or > > > the repo. > > > > Not the svn-log, only the git-log. >=20 > The git log after dcommit is tied to the SVN log, so git-svn can only= reflect > changes which appear in SVN. >=20 > Sidenote: The convention is reply-to-all on lists like > this one which do not require subscription to post. > It prevents the list from being a single-point-of-failure > or censorship. >=20 > > > It's been a while and I'm not up-to-date with the latest SVN. > > > Maybe there's a newer/easier way you could give us details about = :) > > > > No, sorry. I don't care about the svn-log. >=20 > Unfortunately, you would have to care about svn log as long as SVN ex= ists in > your workflow and you need to interact with SVN users. >=20 > git svn tries hard to work transparently and as close to the behavior= of the > upstream SVN repo as possible. Having had to deal with this in pure git without factoring in git svn, = this seems to be is a matter of policy rather than technical requiremen= t. Various customers of mine have decided that using the commit time as= a uniform timestamp to be applied to all files pulled in the specific = commit, is the way to go when doing continuous integration. The solutio= n that we ended up with was a step in our Jenkins build jobs that would= set the timestamp of all files associated with the specific commit to = the time of the commit itself. Any commit not part of the commit that c= hanged that state of the repository was untouched. This became arbitrar= ily complex when the job was impacted by multiple commits, but the gene= ral consensus of those who made the decisions was to apply all timestam= ps associated with all commits, in order, of application (Jenkins seems= happy to deal with this part), so that the files do keep relatively sa= ne from a build perspective. Personally, I am relatively happy with thi= s solution, even if it adds a huge amount of time to the build - genera= lly more than the build itself - so that timestamps are "sane". Doing i= t for straight clones does not seem worth it, because timestamps don't = appear to matter, policy wise, unless official builds are being done. I= t may be worth considering that in the discussion.=20 My comments are just based on a production perspective, rather than dev= elopment, so I ask forgiveness for any red-herrings that may be involve= d. Cheers, Randall -- Brief whoami: NonStop&UNIX developer since approximately UNIX(421664= 400)/NonStop(211288444200000000) -- In my real life, I talk too much.