From: Matthew L Foster Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 02:49:37 GMT Subject: Re: git and time Message-ID: <20060928024938.46785.qmail@web51009.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: --- Sean wrote: > On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 18:48:11 -0700 (PDT) > Matthew L Foster wrote: > > > I actually understand that and agree. All I've been saying is it (git or gitweb.cgi) should > prefer > > the local timestamp rather than any "remote" timestamps for no other reason than to minimize > the > > possibility of timestamps being grossly inaccurate. > > But any local time stamp would be a _lie_. The time stamp in the commit records > when it was actually created. And as Junio has pointed out, hundreds of commits > will typically arrive in a repo at the exact same time. Your suggestion would > have them all showing the exact same time. That's not helpful, and it loses > important factual information. How does git ensure that the timestamp in a commit records when it was actually created? I am not saying throw away creation time, just that local time is more preferable and relevant and git/gitweb.cgi should not in any way depend on time being configured correctly on each and every git server. I think users of kernel.org's repo (or web interface) care more about when change X was commited to it than when an author created/emailed change X, but perhaps I am wrong or don't understand git or both. -Matt __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com