From: David Lang Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 01:31:59 GMT Subject: Re: git and time Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7vk63qnlc2.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote: > David Lang writes: > >>> You are right that a "Merged Date:" in gitweb would be useful information to >>> show for each commit, but it's not straightforward given the design of git. >> >> would it? >> >> remember that a pach could be merged to many trees in any order. which >> merge date do you want to know about? > > The date that repository I am looking at with gitweb first had > that commit, of course. What other dates did you have in mind? > if that repository is then merged into another one, what date would that second one record for that commit? the date it was pulled there? in many cases this would seem to be useless or distracting information (you already display where in the history the merge took place, do you really need to attach that date to all changes that arrive from the branch?) if you have something like a-b-c-d-e-f-g \ h------i------j or worse a \ b-----c-d \ / \ e-f-----g \ h-i---------j do you really want the date of j attached to all the changes a-g? and if this information really is important, wouldn't you want to export the info out (as j then gets merged into m somewhere else) David Lang