From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew L Foster Subject: Re: git and time Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:29:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20060928022917.29678.qmail@web51011.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060928013611.GC7469@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: Linus Torvalds , Andreas Ericsson , Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King , Jakub Narebski X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Sep 28 04:29:22 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 1GSleL-0006Vi-M8 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 28 Sep 2006 04:29:22 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965218AbWI1C3T (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Sep 2006 22:29:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965219AbWI1C3S (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Sep 2006 22:29:18 -0400 Received: from web51011.mail.yahoo.com ([68.142.224.81]:61621 "HELO web51011.mail.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S965218AbWI1C3S (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Sep 2006 22:29:18 -0400 Received: (qmail 29680 invoked by uid 60001); 28 Sep 2006 02:29:17 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=sherjmVR239spRzpYVZS5ATblo0f2CXUiYKb4nOj7lu3zGvXbvZq8E1S3I3e6S5YhlBqBTbRoicWSiNiawPwkY2m9l+Zg4rMhfwJDtorUugj0H88R9W8cFRt5nmPRrOHvl3MFcIN6dcCcc+pCV2DSQMnt/bU33t30/eRLcONgEg= ; Received: from [207.172.80.85] by web51011.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:29:17 PDT To: Theodore Tso In-Reply-To: <20060928013611.GC7469@thunk.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: --- Theodore Tso wrote: > 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? > > No, it can't. In order to do that it would have to change the commit, > and that would be rewriting history. Perhaps the actual change itself should not contain a "commit time", only "local commit time" should matter or be tracked locally (if time is tracked/matters any). To repeat from a previous mail, I am not saying timestamps (local or other) should be tracked in a git distributed way, quite the opposite, local commit time should be tracked locally. Replication is a separate issue if I understand git any. Please correct me if I misunderstand: the kernel.org gitweb.cgi linux repo time inconsistencies happened when Linus pulled into his _private_ repo from a remote git server with misconfigured time, _not_ when he later replicated those errant timestamps from his private repo to the public kernel.org one. I don't care nearly as much about replication not being time aware, I care about a _merge_ from a remote misconfigured git server making timestamps inconsistent with commit order. Using/prefering local time could solve this but perhaps I am the only one that thinks local time is most important. -Matt __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com