Re: [BUG REPORT] Git log pretty date
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Jun 3, 2014, 03:46 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20140603034619.GA18176@sigill.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <CACJZPBtJZ+gDvtHnRwi8JOO7rFAg=pPBvEQ=-FwKnp9Gr+FStw@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 09:08:57AM +0100, Rodrigo Fernandes wrote:
> Do you have any idea how does github understand that is a bug and > fixes it automatically? > (I'm saying this because on Github the date is correct).
I looked into this. The dates you see on GitHub's web UI are actually parsed by Rugged/libgit2. The libgit2 parser is slightly more forgiving in this instance; if it sees a broken timezone, it will leave the timestamp intact, and only omit the timezone. Whereas git says "no, it's broken, and the timestamp cannot be trusted".
I think both are equally valid strategies, and I do not even think it is a problem that they diverge between the two implementations. I'd be OK with a patch to make git handle errors in each independently, assuming it is not too invasive.
-Peff