From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Woodhouse Subject: Re: Date handling. Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 22:48:34 +0100 Message-ID: <1113515314.12012.235.camel@baythorne.infradead.org> References: <1113512078.12012.227.camel@baythorne.infradead.org> <425EDA43.3040404@zytor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Luck, Tony" , Linus Torvalds , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Apr 14 23:46:37 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DMC9t-00037q-Ge for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 23:45:57 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261392AbVDNVsy (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:48:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261445AbVDNVsy (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:48:54 -0400 Received: from baythorne.infradead.org ([81.187.226.107]:52623 "EHLO baythorne.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261392AbVDNVsn (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:48:43 -0400 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=localhost.localdomain) by baythorne.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.43 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1DMCCR-0000w9-AX; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 22:48:35 +0100 To: "H. Peter Anvin" In-Reply-To: <425EDA43.3040404@zytor.com> X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.4 (2.0.4-1.dwmw2.1) X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by baythorne.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 14:01 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Both of these are metadata; they may not be directly relevant to the > filesystem, but are attributes relevant to the client thereof; > effectively an xattr. Right. That's perfectly acceptable -- and that's the reason why I think it's also fine to keep the timezone and the rename information in there too. If we were being _really_ anal about auxiliary information being separate, we'd stick it in a separate blob object and merely refer to it from the commit object. I don't think there's really any call to take it that far, though. -- dwmw2