From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: git and time Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 21:07:50 -0700 Message-ID: <7vbqp063c9.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <20060928001241.62887.qmail@web51013.mail.yahoo.com> <7vzmck7pis.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Sep 28 06:07:58 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 1GSnBj-0000Ye-S3 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 28 Sep 2006 06:07:56 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1031351AbWI1EHx (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:07:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1031352AbWI1EHx (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:07:53 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao04.cox.net ([68.230.241.35]:25541 "EHLO fed1rmmtao04.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1031351AbWI1EHw (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:07:52 -0400 Received: from fed1rmimpo02.cox.net ([70.169.32.72]) by fed1rmmtao04.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20060928040751.PQAL6711.fed1rmmtao04.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net>; Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:07:51 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id Tg7t1V00K1kojtg0000000 Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:07:53 -0400 To: Nicolas Pitre In-Reply-To: (Nicolas Pitre's message of "Wed, 27 Sep 2006 23:07:35 -0400 (EDT)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Nicolas Pitre writes: > On Wed, 27 Sep 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> .... He tends to batch, so he would have many such pulls and >> patch applications in his private repository, perhaps over a few >> hour, but the result will be pushed out to kernel.org with one >> push operation. To show the "truthful" time, your gitweb would >> give the timestamp of that push operation for hundreds of >> commits pushed out during that operation. >> >> I do not personally think that would be useful at all. And I >> happen to know how expensive to teach gitweb to produce such an >> output, so I would not seriously suggest anybody to try it. > > I beg to differ. Such information might be really useful. I agree > though that this is an expensive operation and gitweb might not be the > best place for it at all. > > For example... some times I look at git-log output and finds about a > certain bug fix that was apparently committed a month ago. And > incidentally I recall having been bitten by that bug not really long > ago, say last week. Although the bug fix was committed _somewhere_ last > month, what I would really want to know is just when _i_ received that > bug fix in my own repository to determine if it was before or after last > week. So if it was before last week then I could conclude that the bug > fix didn't actually fix my bug. Knowing that it has been committed last > month is absolutely useless to me in this case. I beg to agree ;-). Being able to inspect a particular commit to find out when it hit the branch is probably useful. I do not have much objection to have it on the commit page. It is totally a separate matter to use that timestamp to order the commits listed on the shortlog page, which Matthew seemed to be after. I would say that _is_ wasteful and loses more interesting information by listing all several dozen commits Linus pushed out the last time with the same timestamps.