From: Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 23:32:50 GMT
Subject: Re: git and time
Message-ID: <efcdaq$hld$1@sea.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <20060926232316.98065.qmail@web51009.mail.yahoo.com>

Matthew L Foster wrote:

> After seeing how git currently accepts a remote repository's timestamp
> it occurred to me that git should probably instead prefer the time
> a particular changeset was committed to _this_ repository. Perhaps
> I don't know enough about git but it seems to me the important
> information is  when a particular changeset was committed to this
> repository, all other remote/sub/parent repositories' timestamps
> are secondary (or at least should be tracked separately). 

First, the information you want is contained in reflog. Dates the head tip
got the specified value.

Second, git cannot rewrite commits (and commits contain timestamp) when
fetching commit from remote repository for performance reasons.

Third, git uses timestams as heuristics, but relies on parent information.
-- 
Jakub Narebski
Warsaw, Poland
ShadeHawk on #git