Re: git and time
- From
- Matthew L Foster <mfoster167@yahoo.com>
- Date
- Sep 27, 2006, 20:44 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20060927204428.39120.qmail@web51014.mail.yahoo.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <Pine.LNX.4.64.0609271109510.3952@g5.osdl.org>
--- Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote:
Show 10 quoted lines
> > Ok, the word "history" in the context of git primarily means the order of changes not the > when? > > Would it be a conceptual or technical issue for git to directly track the local time of > > merges/changesets? > > True merges _get_ tracked - they are commits too (they just have multiple > parents). > > But it's only the time the merge was done that gets tracked, not the time > the merge was then pushed out to somebody else.
What is the difference between a merge and a "merge then pushed out"? There are at least some situations where a repo would prefer to know its local time of a merge or pulled in merge and anyway a local repo probably should not in any way be dependent on nor _trust_ all remote repos timestamps...?
-Matt
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com