From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: git and time Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 20:21:24 -0400 Message-ID: <20060928002124.GA16634@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20060928001241.62887.qmail@web51013.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Linus Torvalds , Andreas Ericsson , Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org, Jakub Narebski X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Sep 28 02:21:36 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GSjed-0003hb-5z for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 28 Sep 2006 02:21:31 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1031278AbWI1AV2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Sep 2006 20:21:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965173AbWI1AV2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Sep 2006 20:21:28 -0400 Received: from 66-23-211-5.clients.speedfactory.net ([66.23.211.5]:61824 "HELO peff.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S965171AbWI1AV1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Sep 2006 20:21:27 -0400 Received: (qmail 11284 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2006 20:21:24 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by 66-23-211-5.clients.speedfactory.net with SMTP; 27 Sep 2006 20:21:24 -0400 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 27 Sep 2006 20:21:24 -0400 To: Matthew L Foster Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060928001241.62887.qmail@web51013.mail.yahoo.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: 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