From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Pitre Subject: Re: git and time Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 22:51:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: <20060928022917.29678.qmail@web51011.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: Theodore Tso , 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 04:52:11 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 1GSm0K-0003Dr-Oo for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 28 Sep 2006 04:52:05 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965237AbWI1Cv5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Sep 2006 22:51:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965239AbWI1Cv5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Sep 2006 22:51:57 -0400 Received: from relais.videotron.ca ([24.201.245.36]:18332 "EHLO relais.videotron.ca") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965237AbWI1Cv4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Sep 2006 22:51:56 -0400 Received: from xanadu.home ([74.56.106.175]) by VL-MO-MR004.ip.videotron.ca (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-2.05 (built Apr 28 2005)) with ESMTP id <0J6A004YC7YJ8AO0@VL-MO-MR004.ip.videotron.ca> for git@vger.kernel.org; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 22:51:55 -0400 (EDT) In-reply-to: <20060928022917.29678.qmail@web51011.mail.yahoo.com> X-X-Sender: nico@xanadu.home To: Matthew L Foster Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, 27 Sep 2006, Matthew L Foster wrote: > --- 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. What I think you want and what you should talk about is that you're interested into the "local appearance time" for a given commit and not "local commit time". Using that terminology is probably much less confusing in the GIT world. To do so you'll need a GIT command that doesn'T exist yet. Let's call it git-local-arrival. It could be defined as follows: SYNOPSIS git-local-arrival DESCRIPTION The command displays the time when given commit appeared in the local repository. Is that what you want? That's certainly something _I_ would be interested in. But such a command would have to do some commit graph walking, based on the recorded reflog data, (there is not much documentation about reflog unfortunately) to find out exactly when given commit actually was fetched into the local repository. While that would be perfectly acceptable to use on your own machine, I don't think it would be a good idea to let gitweb use it due to the computing cost required. But again that's something possible but for which there is currently no code. [ thinking out loud: maybe git-rev-list could provide that local appearance time quite easily though... ] Nicolas