From: Erick Mattos Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 23:12:58 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] Changed timestamp behavior of options -c/-C/--amend Message-ID: <55bacdd30910301612xabe2071i1319d920191f080f@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <7v4opgh5qr.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> 2009/10/30 Junio C Hamano : > Erick Mattos writes: > >> 2009/10/30 Junio C Hamano : >>> Junio C Hamano writes: >>> >>>> ... >>>> I agree that the issue the patch addresses is worth improving, and I think >>>> it is sensible to default to reuse the timestamp for -C and not to reuse >>>> for --amend.  I am not sure about -c myself, but it probably shouldn't >>>> reuse the timestamp by default. >>> >>> So after realizing that this was about "author" timestamp, I am rescinding >>> this comment about the change of the default for -c and --amend. >> >> Actually I am only changing the default for -c and I see it useful. >> At least with me I normally use -c only to use messages of commits as >> template. > > I do that from time to time as well.  As I said in a different message, it > may make the default more intutitive if we give new timestamp when the > author is the same as the committer when doing "-c".  You are creating > your own commit in that case. > I don't see a use for comparing the author and committer because I can use as template my own commits or others'. Let's clarify the subject: In my point-of-view -c option is mainly used for templating commit messages. In that case -c has a different default from -C and --amend options thus creating a need for two new options: --reuse-timestamp and --no-reuse-timestamp. As I see by your messages you do prefer to have all those options set up for reusing timestamp as default. In that case we just need one new option: --no-reuse-timestamp (or --recreate-timestamp or whatever). So now It is a matter of decision only and you are the guy. What should be for all?