From: Junio C Hamano Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:33:37 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] --date=relative falls back to "short" format for commits older than a year Message-ID: <7v8wnxun8e.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20090223031631.GC22348@coredump.intra.peff.net> Jeff King writes: > I thought about that, but I wanted to keep the maximum size down for > column output (like in git-blame). Which is why I bumped the "use > months" limit to 24 months instead of 12. > > And that limit can also be tweaked. Surely at some point there is a > range where you no longer care about the months and "N years" has high > enough resolution. But there is also a point where "N months" gets > cumbersome (75 months is a more annoying than "around 6 years"). The > question is whether we reach the "cumbersome" point before we reach the > "don't care about months" point. Yes, "75 months" is unacceptable. I suspect people's mind would not work well with anything larger than 60 months. I've actually thought about "don't care about months" point, but 12 months is a long time. You certainly remember there still was a noticeable maturity difference between classmates who were born in the earliest months of the school year and in the last months before graduating grade school. Perhaps after 20 years. > Another option would to give higher resolution in number of years, like > "3.5 years" or even "3.1 years". But I do not think people think of years in terms of decimal fraction.