Re: [PATCH] Keep committer and committer dates

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Jun 4, 2008, 15:43 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0806041641150.13507@racer.site.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0806041424140.1798@tm8103-a.perex-int.cz>

Hi,

On Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Jaroslav Kysela wrote:

Show 25 quoted lines

> On Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Jakub Narebski wrote:
> 
> > Karl Hasselstr?m <kha@treskal.com> writes:
> > 
> > > On 2008-06-04 11:16:46 +0200, Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > That feels really funny, given that the guy running git-am _is_
> > > > > the committer, not whoever provided some extra headers to the
> > > > > mailbox.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, the implementatation does not make sense for public patch
> > > > handling, but if you do various things locally with git-rebase or
> > > > git-am (pack picking from another repo), you may consider it useful.
> > > 
> > > But still, you're creating new commits, so they should have your name
> > > on them.
> > 
> > Yes, if you are _creating_ *commits*, then you are *committer*, isn't it?
> 
> I agree with that, but if you just manage patches and you want to keep 
> commit history and change only hash numbers, it's an option. Nothing else. 
> It's just tool extension and users have to cleverly decide if it's worth 
> to use it or not.

I think that

- what you want to do is better done with git fast-export; <edit>; git 
  fast-import, than with git porcelain, and

- you hopefully do _not_ want to recommend your workflow (and bless it 
  with porcelain support), because

- as has been pointed out several times now, you _are_ the committer, and 
  you seem to want to lie there.

Ciao, Dscho