Re: [PATCH v3 01/20] linear-assignment: a function to solve least-cost assignment problems
- From
Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
- Date
- Jul 7, 2018, 19:27 UTC
- Message-ID
- <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1807072116570.75@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqq7em7gg3j.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
Hi Junio,
On Sat, 7 Jul 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 11 quoted lines
> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes: > > >> Does the "gitgitgadget" thing lie on the Date: e-mail header? > > > > No, GitGitGadget takes the literal output from `git format-patch`, as far > > as I can tell. So if at all, it is `format-patch` that is lying. > > format-patch faithfully records the fact about the commit that is > made into the patch. How pieces of information should (or should > not) be used depends on the purpose of the application that uses > its output.
I guess this is one of the fallouts for abusing the `format-patch|am` dance for `rebase--am`.
> I'd suggest to match what send-email does, which is to notice but > use the current date when adding a Date: header. An option to lie > to SMTP servers may be OK but I do not think we want to encourage > such a behaviour by making it the default.
I opened a PR to add a TODO:
https://github.com/gitgitgadget/gitgitgadget/pull/15
Show 8 quoted lines
> What is missing in the core-git tools is an ability to tell > send-email to optionaly add an in-body header to record the author > date of the original. We add an in-body header that records the > real author when it is different from the sender automatically, and > it is OK to have an option to allow doing so (but not encouraged > around here---it is easier to reason about the resulting history for > everybody, perhaps other than the original author, to record the > first time you show the change to the public as the author time).
Pull Request-based workflows keep the original author date all the time. If that is not desired, we need to do more than paper over it by adjusting `send-email`.
Ciao, Dscho