Re: git and time

From: Matthew L Foster <mfoster167@yahoo.com>
Date: Sep 28, 2006, 22:29 UTC
Message-ID: <20060928222935.66578.qmail@web51012.mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <20060928195056.GA3751@spearce.org>

--- Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> wrote:

> > - So exported data is never/rarely in an inconsistent state with respect to commit order and
> > local time order (data integrity).
> 
> Pick one.  You can't have "never" and "rarely".

I mean "rarely" in the sense that there is no guarantee that local time is exact but any
inexactness would be confined locally.

> Track it by version, not timestamp.  Know what commit or tag SHA1
> was used to produce that binary.  Ask GIT if the fix is in that
> SHA1 ancestory or not.  I've already said that on this thread.

So you are saying time, even local commit time, is completely unnecessary? I disagree. Git doesn't need to keep track of any times in a distributed way, it just might be worthwhile to keep track of local commit timestamps internally per repo.

Show 5 quoted lines

> I think they care more about what release of the kernel will have
> that driver.  That can easily be determined by the DAG and by
> understanding what branch(es) will wind up in the next release and
> doing simple math: "Lets see, current release is version 2.6.9000,
> so it will be in 2.6.9001."

Even if people care more about "what release" that doesn't mean they don't care about (local commit) time.

-Matt

__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com