From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4CF3C433EF for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2022 12:48:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S242924AbiCSMuP (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Mar 2022 08:50:15 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:35782 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229470AbiCSMuO (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Mar 2022 08:50:14 -0400 Received: from bluemchen.kde.org (bluemchen.kde.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:8::100]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACBA96E8E4 for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2022 05:48:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ugly.fritz.box (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bluemchen.kde.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77BC020391 for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2022 08:48:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ugly.fritz.box (masqmail 0.3.4, from userid 1000) id 1nVYVn-C1J-00 for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2022 13:48:51 +0100 Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2022 13:48:51 +0100 From: Oswald Buddenhagen To: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: using oldest date when squashing commits Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org moin, during interactive rebasing, i sometimes find it necessary to move a hunk from one commit to a later one in the branch. now, if that hunk cannot be re-ordered with the later commit due to conflicting with it, it becomes necessary to squash the later commit onto a temporary commit created from the extracted hunk, not the other way around (or using a stash). unfortunately, this causes the author date of the later commit to be reset, which can rather seriously falsify the date if the branch is long-lived. i know how to manually work around that, but that's not exactly user friendly. my first thought was to create an --oldest-date option (essentially complementary to --ignore-date). but i wonder whether it even needs to be an option? why would anyone not want that behavior, unless they are explicitly resetting the date anyway? thanks