Re: Gmail munges dates?

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Dec 13, 2019, 17:52 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqtv64kt9n.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <20191213054227.GA76445@coredump.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

Show 12 quoted lines

>> 2. Do we want to introduce a --in-body-date option or something to
>> format-patch which would include an in-body Date:, similar to the
>> in-body From:? (Also, while we're at it, maybe we could include an
>> --in-body-from to force that to happen since that's been a feature that
>> was requested in the past[2])
>
> I doubt I'd use it myself, but I wouldn't be opposed to an in-body-date
> option. You'd perhaps want to define some heuristics to avoid
> uninteresting noise. If your patch is from 10 minutes ago, and you are
> just now sending it in, adding the extra date header is mostly just
> clutter. So perhaps you'd want it to kick in when the date is more than
> N time units or something.

I do not have a fundamental objection to the --in-body-date option, either, although I do not want to see it used when sending patches to this list.

As long as it is a command-line per-invocation option, I do not think you'd need any "uninteresting noise filtering" logic. A configuration variable to always do so would cause a huge headache to keep the behaviour sensible when sending one's own patches, and would require such filtering, I would think.

Thanks.