Re: [BUG REPORT] Git log pretty date

> Jeff,
> I have no idea what was the tool. The repo is not mine. I found the
> problem when I was doing some tests and the commit parsing was failing
> on that repo.
>
> Cumprimentos,
> Rodrigo Fernandes
>
>
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:49 PM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 11:57:15AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>
>>> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
>>>
>>> > ...
>>> > to at least make --format date output consistent with the rest of git
>>> > (and to make "%at" consistent with "%ad" and --date=raw). That still
>>> > doesn't address Rodrigo's concern, though (we would print "0 +0000").
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> I actually am not very much interested in deciding what to show for
>>> a broken timestamp.  An empty string is just as good as any random
>>> cruft.
>>
>> I was thinking specifically of the first part I quoted above. We are not
>> consistent between various methods of parsing/printing the date. That
>> may fall into the "if were doing it from scratch..." category, though;
>> it's possible that people currently using "--format=%ad" prefer and
>> expect the empty string to denote a bogus value. I'm OK with leaving it.
>>
>>> I agree with you that it would be nice to have one escape
>>> hatch to let the users see what garbage is recorded, if only for
>>> diagnostic purposes, and DATE_RAW may be one good way to do so (but
>>> I'd rather recommend "cat-file commit" for real diagnostics).
>>
>> Yeah, in case I wasn't clear, I don't actually like DATE_RAW as a way to
>> do that. I'd prefer "--pretty=raw" or "cat-file commit", which already
>> work.
>>
>>> I would be more interested to see whatever broken tool that created
>>> such a commit gets fixed.  Do we know where it came from?
>>
>> I don't think it has been said yet in the thread. Rodrigo?
>>
>> -Peff