From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: Q about the date format in "git commit --date=..." and such Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 20:16:46 -0500 Message-ID: <20110308011646.GA21278@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <4D73B158.5040409@dirk.my1.cc> <20110307165448.GD11934@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vzkp6zclw.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Dirk =?utf-8?Q?S=C3=BCsserott?= , Git Mailing List To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Mar 08 02:17:10 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PwlXy-0004Ds-3C for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2011 02:17:10 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754951Ab1CHBQy (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Mar 2011 20:16:54 -0500 Received: from xen6.gtisc.gatech.edu ([143.215.130.70]:53213 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752897Ab1CHBQy (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Mar 2011 20:16:54 -0500 Received: (qmail 10297 invoked by uid 111); 8 Mar 2011 01:16:52 -0000 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (99.108.226.0) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with ESMTPA; Tue, 08 Mar 2011 01:16:52 +0000 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 07 Mar 2011 20:16:46 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vzkp6zclw.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 04:20:59PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > That being said, with --reset-author I have never needed --date, so I > > don't personally care if it gets done or not. > > In short, should I take that the resolution of this issue is "I didn't > know about --reset-author and asking for --date=loose was an X-Y problem"? > > I agree with you that we would not want to loosen the specification side > (i.e. "commit --date=" as opposed to the selector side "log --since=") > unless we absolutely have to. It is up to Dirk to say whether it solves his particular problem or not. But thinking on it more, --date=now does encourage a bit of a wrong workflow. Why would you be resetting the date but _not_ taking ownership? Maybe a reasonable situation for that exists, but I couldn't think of one. -Peff