Re: Understanding why Git defaults to show author date and not committer date

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jul 11, 2026, 20:54 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq4ii5b639.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <20260711080331.GB1470749@coredump.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

Show 15 quoted lines

> On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 05:08:11PM +0200, Omri Sarig wrote:
>
>> I understand the distinction between the 2 formats, and I can see the utility of
>> both. I'm curious about the decision to show the author date and not the
>> committer date as default one in Git commands.
>> Are there some workflows where the author date is more relevant, or is that
>> mostly a legacy decision?
>> 
>> I'd be interested in hearing about workflows where the author date is the more
>> useful one, as I use the committer date almost always.
>
> In a workflow based on mailing patches, the committer date is usually
> much less interesting. It is "when the maintainer happened to pick up
> your patch", as opposed to when you wrote it. Likewise, we show the
> author's name by default, not the committer's.

True. In mailing list workflow, the author date recorded is usually the date that the patch was sent to the mailing list, which may be later than when you wrote it, but is much more relevant as that is closer to the time when anybody other than the author have seen the patch for the first time.