From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2026 08:03:31 GMT
Subject: Re: Understanding why Git defaults to show author date and not committer date
Message-ID: <20260711080331.GB1470749@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAP9es6tyaGwfTguz5zgBmE5xN7MLDN3-rxRfo_JJBf79RCNzgg@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 05:08:11PM +0200, Omri Sarig wrote:

> I understand the distinction between the 2 formats, and I can see the utility of
> both. I'm curious about the decision to show the author date and not the
> committer date as default one in Git commands.
> Are there some workflows where the author date is more relevant, or is that
> mostly a legacy decision?
> 
> I'd be interested in hearing about workflows where the author date is the more
> useful one, as I use the committer date almost always.

In a workflow based on mailing patches, the committer date is usually
much less interesting. It is "when the maintainer happened to pick up
your patch", as opposed to when you wrote it. Likewise, we show the
author's name by default, not the committer's.

-Peff