{"thread":{"id":"65972","subject":"Understanding why Git defaults to show author date and not committer date","startedAt":"2026-07-10T15:08:22Z","lastAt":"2026-07-12T08:45:24Z","messageCount":4,"participants":["Omri Sarig","Jeff King","Junio C Hamano","Oswald Buddenhagen"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"547741","messageId":"CAP9es6tyaGwfTguz5zgBmE5xN7MLDN3-rxRfo_JJBf79RCNzgg@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"65972","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Understanding why Git defaults to show author date and not committer date","fromName":"Omri Sarig","fromEmail":"omri.sarig13@gmail.com","sentAt":"2026-07-10T15:08:11Z","receivedAt":"2026-07-10T15:08:22Z","isPatch":false,"body":"Hello,\n\nI've had several discussions with fellow developers, and I found out that many\nof them are somewhat confused about the date shown when they look at the Git\nlog.\nIn our main workflow, we are mostly using a rebase strategy to get commits into\na main branch, so I can understand their confusion when looking at the default\nlog view - dates are moving back and forth, and it's not possible to know when a\ncommit was introduced to the main branch.\nI understand this is one of many workflows, but in my personal experience, I\nfind that in most workflows, the committer date is the one that I find relevant.\n\nWithin our teams, we usually end up creating aliases/updating configuration to\nmake the Git log show the committer date by default, and find that it makes the\nlog/commit viewing easier to understand for non-super-users.\n\nI understand the distinction between the 2 formats, and I can see the utility of\nboth. I'm curious about the decision to show the author date and not the\ncommitter date as default one in Git commands.\nAre there some workflows where the author date is more relevant, or is that\nmostly a legacy decision?\n\nI'd be interested in hearing about workflows where the author date is the more\nuseful one, as I use the committer date almost always.\n\nI've tried to look for information regarding this decision (both in the\ndocumentation and through the mailing list), but couldn't find any discussion.\n\nLooking forward to hearing your thoughts,\n/ Omri Sarig\n"},{"id":"547816","messageId":"20260711080331.GB1470749@coredump.intra.peff.net","threadId":"65972","inReplyTo":"CAP9es6tyaGwfTguz5zgBmE5xN7MLDN3-rxRfo_JJBf79RCNzgg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Understanding why Git defaults to show author date and not committer date","fromName":"Jeff King","fromEmail":"peff@peff.net","sentAt":"2026-07-11T08:03:31Z","receivedAt":"2026-07-11T08:03:33Z","isPatch":false,"body":"On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 05:08:11PM +0200, Omri Sarig wrote:\n\n> I understand the distinction between the 2 formats, and I can see the utility of\n> both. I'm curious about the decision to show the author date and not the\n> committer date as default one in Git commands.\n> Are there some workflows where the author date is more relevant, or is that\n> mostly a legacy decision?\n> \n> I'd be interested in hearing about workflows where the author date is the more\n> useful one, as I use the committer date almost always.\n\nIn a workflow based on mailing patches, the committer date is usually\nmuch less interesting. It is \"when the maintainer happened to pick up\nyour patch\", as opposed to when you wrote it. Likewise, we show the\nauthor's name by default, not the committer's.\n\n-Peff\n"},{"id":"547861","messageId":"xmqq4ii5b639.fsf@gitster.g","threadId":"65972","inReplyTo":"20260711080331.GB1470749@coredump.intra.peff.net","subject":"Re: Understanding why Git defaults to show author date and not committer date","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2026-07-11T20:54:02Z","receivedAt":"2026-07-11T20:54:05Z","isPatch":false,"body":"Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:\n\n> On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 05:08:11PM +0200, Omri Sarig wrote:\n>\n>> I understand the distinction between the 2 formats, and I can see the utility of\n>> both. I'm curious about the decision to show the author date and not the\n>> committer date as default one in Git commands.\n>> Are there some workflows where the author date is more relevant, or is that\n>> mostly a legacy decision?\n>> \n>> I'd be interested in hearing about workflows where the author date is the more\n>> useful one, as I use the committer date almost always.\n>\n> In a workflow based on mailing patches, the committer date is usually\n> much less interesting. It is \"when the maintainer happened to pick up\n> your patch\", as opposed to when you wrote it. Likewise, we show the\n> author's name by default, not the committer's.\n\nTrue.  In mailing list workflow, the author date recorded is usually\nthe date that the patch was sent to the mailing list, which may be\nlater than when you wrote it, but is much more relevant as that is\ncloser to the time when anybody other than the author have seen the\npatch for the first time.\n"},{"id":"547879","messageId":"alNUIWZ7W38ABxU5@ugly.lan","threadId":"65972","inReplyTo":"xmqq4ii5b639.fsf@gitster.g","subject":"Re: Understanding why Git defaults to show author date and not committer date","fromName":"Oswald Buddenhagen","fromEmail":"oswald.buddenhagen@gmx.de","sentAt":"2026-07-12T08:45:21Z","receivedAt":"2026-07-12T08:45:24Z","isPatch":false,"body":"On Sat, Jul 11, 2026 at 01:54:02PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n>Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:\n>> In a workflow based on mailing patches, the committer date is usually\n>> much less interesting. It is \"when the maintainer happened to pick up\n>> your patch\", as opposed to when you wrote it.\n>\n>True.  In mailing list workflow, the author date recorded is usually\n>the date that the patch was sent to the mailing list, which may be\n>later than when you wrote it, but is much more relevant as that is\n>closer to the time when anybody other than the author have seen the\n>patch for the first time.\n>\nbut why do you consider this more interesting than when the commit \nactually hit the target branch? why would most people exploring branch \nhistories care more for the \"meta\" surrounding submissions rather than \nwhen they actually started to matter to users?\n\n>> Likewise, we show the author's name by default, not the committer's.\n>\nwhich should be kept, because the committer identity is much less \ninteresting in most workflows.\n\nshowing author name + committer date by default may seem unclean, but \nit's what is most *useful*.\n\nif the change was to be made, it would have to be visualized to avoid \nconfusion. i kinda like s/Date:/Stamp:/ because it's short and the \nmetaphor kinda makes sense. \"Committed:\" seems worse. format=fuller's \n\"CommitDate\" seems even worse in this context.\n\nthe new default should get a new somewhat arbitrary name like \"compact\".\nnote that i'm not worried about backwards compatibility, as somebody \nparsing the porcelain output without even specifying a format doesn't \ndeserve differently.\n"}]}