Re: git and time

[Jeff King <peff@peff.net>]

On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 05:12:41PM -0700, Matthew L Foster wrote:

> Ignoring the separate issue of replication for a momment, can someone
> respond to my time integrity question about whether a future version
> of git could trust/prefer its local time rather than a
> remote/sub/parent (non replicated) git server's timestamp?

Yes, it could. But it would not involve rewriting the commit object or
adding a new commit object (for reasons I hope have been adequately
explained by Linus). Instead, an external mapping would be made between
a commit SHA1 and a timestamp (or a (branch,sha1) pair and a timestamp).

In fact, this is how reflogs work (but they make a map only when the
head changes, not marking each commit that enters the repo).

> How do we fix gitweb.cgi, ref-log?

To "fix" gitweb, keep a database in each local repository as described
above (either based on reflog, or one that is more comprehensive). Have
gitweb report that date rather than the timestamp contained in the
commit.

Nobody has created such a patch; you can always try and see what the
response is.

> How useful is gitweb.cgi if timestamps are all over the place? It does

Quite useful, according to many git users.

-Peff