Re: Bug: rebase -i creates committer time inversions on 'reword'

> 
> Am 15.04.2018 um 23:35 schrieb Junio C Hamano:
>> Ah, do you mean we have an internal sequence like this, when "rebase
>> --continue" wants to conclude an edit/reword?
> 
> Yes, it's only 'reword' that is affected, because then subsequent picks
> are processed by the original process.
> 
>>   - we figure out the committer ident, which grabs a timestamp and
>>     cache it;
>>
>>   - we spawn "commit" to conclude the stopped step, letting it record
>>     its beginning time (which is a bit older than the above) or its
>>     ending time (which is much older due to human typing speed);
> 
> Younger in both cases, of course. According to my tests, we seem to pick
> the beginning time, because the first 'reword'ed commit typically has
> the same timestamp as the preceding picks. Later 'reword'ed commits have
> noticably younger timestamps.
> 
>>   - subsequent "picks" are made in the same process, and share the
>>     timestamp we grabbed in the first step, which is older than the
>>     second one.
>>
>> I guess we'd want a mechanism to tell ident.c layer "discard the
>> cached one, as we are no longer in the same automated sequence", and
>> use that whenever we spawn an editor (or otherwise go interactive).
> 
> Frankly, I think that this caching is overengineered (or prematurly
> optimized). If the design requires that different callers of datestamp()
> must see the same time, then the design is broken. In a fixed design,
> there would be a single call of datestamp() in advance, and then the
> timestamp, which then obviously is a very important piece of data, would
> be passed along as required.