Re: Millisecond precision in timestamps?

> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
>>
>>> There is room for new headers, and older versions of git will ignore
>>> them. You could add a new "committer-timestamp" field that elaborates on
>>> the timestamp included on the committer line. Newer versions of git
>>> would respect it, and older versions would fall back to using the
>>> committer timestamp.
>>>
>>> But I really wonder if anybody actually cares about adding sub-second
>>> timestamp support, or if it is merely "because SVN has it".
>>
>> Roundtrip conversions may benefit from sub-second timestamps, but
>> personally I think negative timestamps are more interesting and of
>> practical use.  Prehistoric projects need them even if they intend
>> to switch to Git, never to go back to their original tarballs and
>> collection of RCS ,v files.
>
> If roundtripping to other version control systems is an argument,
> adding sub-second timestamps could potentially create as many problems
> as it solves. For example, I've been using the hg-git bridge, and it
> supports roundtripping between git and mercurial today (for most repos
> I've tried anyway). I may have missed something, but this could imply
> that mercurial doesn't care about sub-second timestamps either. If so,
> and if git suddenly were to record it, it would no longer be as
> straight forward to represent git history in hg.