Re: How dangerous is --committer-date-is-author-date these days?

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Sep 30, 2024, 17:08 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqwmit83y0.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <93041214-4774-49eb-b8bd-24648134cded@app.fastmail.com>

"Kristoffer Haugsbakk" <kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com> writes:

> As a Git user, I don’t understand why some people want to fiddle with
> this field in rewrite operations.  It’s very hidden (apparently you have
> to use something like `git log --format=fuller` to reveal it).

FWIW, as a Git user, I don't, either.

It is justifiable for "rebase -i" to be aware of the option, merely because the underlying "git am" had it. I think "--ignore-date" option falls into a similar bucket, but it is of lessor evil between the two (at least I can see a legitimate reasoning behind use of that option).

Show 5 quoted lines

> I can’t speak for power users.  But regular users?  Well I see questions
> about being very deliberate about setting this field on rewrite
> operations on StackOverflow (at least one time).  But I can only guess
> *why* they are particular about it (this part is often not explained).
> And I don’t know if they know the true “spirit” behind the field.

Very nicely said. There _might_ be a legitimate reason to futz with the committer date, but I do not think of a good reason why it makes sense to replace it with the author date. They are separate fields because they mean different things---your mention of "true spirit" is spot-on.

> That option was added to git-am(1).  So not a rewrite operation.  Rather
> a “lie” (as it was documented on that commit).

Yes, I do not offhand see a reason why the option should exist. I won't be the person who says "no, it is valuable, do not touch it" if somebody proposes to drop it (from all places) at a major version boundary.

Thanks.