From: Dan Savilonis Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 00:06:11 GMT Subject: Re: git format-patch from date never set 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 wrote: > Dan Savilonis writes: > >> On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Alex Riesen 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 >