From: Junio C Hamano Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 21:44:42 GMT Subject: Re: kernel.org now has gitweb installed Message-ID: <7voeby60fp.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> In-Reply-To: <1114723402.2734.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> >>>>> "DW" == David Woodhouse writes: DW> On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 14:21 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> 2. Assuming that we do want to enforce that parent fields of a >> commit object name valid commit objects, is it OK to also >> require that the commit timestamp of a child object is not in >> the future relative to any and all of its parent commit >> objects DW> No. Time is utterly meaningless -- it's perfectly normal for clocks to DW> be out of sync. We really don't want to fall into the trap of assigning DW> any meaning to the timestamp. If that is really the case, shouldn't we do one of the following: (1) Timestamp is meaningless. Stop recording it in the commit objects. (2) Keep recording meaningless timestamp in the commit objects, because otherwise it would break backward compatibility. However, stop looking at timestamp in commit.c; especially pop_most-recent_commit() is meaningless hance what rev-list does. (3) Require the proper ordering in the timestamp as I suggested. Users should take note and make corrective action if their clocks are _way_ out of sync. I do not think we want to do either (1) or (2).