Re: git format-patch from date never set
- From
- Dan Savilonis <djs@n-cube.org>
- Date
- Jul 26, 2009, 00:06 UTC
- Message-ID
- <325c62f60907251706i4d9bf656n8e094a22a8736924@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <7v7hxwtlf7.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
Okay, I can see that. I suppose I don't really have an argument in favor of using the real date, other than aesthetics.
-- Dan
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Junio C Hamano<gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
Show 23 quoted lines
> Dan Savilonis <djs@n-cube.org> writes: > >> On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Alex Riesen<raa.lkml@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Neither. This is not a date, but a part of "loosely defined" mbox format. >>> >> >> In the examples of mbox format I have found, the date in the From: >> line is generally the same as in the Date: line, albeit in a more >> ambiguous format. Further, the the git code treats it as a date and >> attempts to set it. It remains at the default date only because >> git_committer_info() is called without GIT_COMMITTER_DATE set. >> >> So is the code misleading? Was it designed to just meet the minimal >> requirement of having a date-like string to comform to the mbox >> format? What's the disadvantage to using the real commit date? > > Having it as a fixed date-looking string was to help /etc/magic entry > people may want to invent to detect format-patch output. > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >