From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew L Foster Subject: Re: git and time Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:49:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20060928024938.46785.qmail@web51009.mail.yahoo.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: Junio C Hamano , Linus Torvalds , Andreas Ericsson , git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King , Jakub Narebski X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Sep 28 04:50:27 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 1GSlyg-0002pG-Fm for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 28 Sep 2006 04:50:22 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965227AbWI1Ctj (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Sep 2006 22:49:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965228AbWI1Ctj (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Sep 2006 22:49:39 -0400 Received: from web51009.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.39.128]:28282 "HELO web51009.mail.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S965227AbWI1Ctj (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Sep 2006 22:49:39 -0400 Received: (qmail 46787 invoked by uid 60001); 28 Sep 2006 02:49:38 -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=XH3Yz2UqW1gCEYbM6cXkdWh5hhH/1MKN/KqHp5x6GyALpg3abL6VhHjadSeH3bR5J9qwqucgoYM5gItL8g1el5wFUewl6QhFTK/VJo5Bg0Qy+veoZq3Ygne2dPQujGNKO1iaePPiSY9EqsMeiDl3p8ICW/J4RXOsQX2MO8viO3o= ; Received: from [207.172.80.85] by web51009.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:49:37 PDT To: Sean In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: --- Sean wrote: > On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 18:48:11 -0700 (PDT) > Matthew L Foster wrote: > > > I actually understand that and agree. All I've been saying is it (git or gitweb.cgi) should > prefer > > the local timestamp rather than any "remote" timestamps for no other reason than to minimize > the > > possibility of timestamps being grossly inaccurate. > > But any local time stamp would be a _lie_. The time stamp in the commit records > when it was actually created. And as Junio has pointed out, hundreds of commits > will typically arrive in a repo at the exact same time. Your suggestion would > have them all showing the exact same time. That's not helpful, and it loses > important factual information. How does git ensure that the timestamp in a commit records when it was actually created? I am not saying throw away creation time, just that local time is more preferable and relevant and git/gitweb.cgi should not in any way depend on time being configured correctly on each and every git server. I think users of kernel.org's repo (or web interface) care more about when change X was commited to it than when an author created/emailed change X, but perhaps I am wrong or don't understand git or both. -Matt __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com