threads / discuss / 20233
Subject: git format-patch from date never set
git format-patch always sets the date in the From: line to the git default date, e.g.
From b9ff0ba6f3e228e1a8b67a25bc7be6b1da5ed1f3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
The command uses GIT_COMMITTER_DATE as the date, but this env variable is never set in cmd_format_patch(). Is this a bug or 'feature'?
-- Dan
Alex RiesenRe: git format-patch from date never set
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 23:39, Dan Savilonis<djs@n-cube.org> wrote:
> git format-patch always sets the date in the From: line to the git > default date, e.g. > > From b9ff0ba6f3e228e1a8b67a25bc7be6b1da5ed1f3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > The command uses GIT_COMMITTER_DATE as the date, but this env variable > is never set in cmd_format_patch(). Is this a bug or 'feature'?
Neither. This is not a date, but a part of "loosely defined" mbox format.
Re: git format-patch from date never set
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Alex Riesen<raa.lkml@gmail.com> wrote:
> Neither. This is not a date, but a part of "loosely defined" mbox format. >
In the examples of mbox format I have found, the date in the From: line is generally the same as in the Date: line, albeit in a more ambiguous format. Further, the the git code treats it as a date and attempts to set it. It remains at the default date only because git_committer_info() is called without GIT_COMMITTER_DATE set.
So is the code misleading? Was it designed to just meet the minimal requirement of having a date-like string to comform to the mbox format? What's the disadvantage to using the real commit date?
-- Dan
Junio C HamanoRe: git format-patch from date never set
Dan Savilonis <djs@n-cube.org> writes:
> On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Alex Riesen<raa.lkml@gmail.com> wrote: >> Neither. This is not a date, but a part of "loosely defined" mbox format. >> > > In the examples of mbox format I have found, the date in the From: > line is generally the same as in the Date: line, albeit in a more > ambiguous format. Further, the the git code treats it as a date and > attempts to set it. It remains at the default date only because > git_committer_info() is called without GIT_COMMITTER_DATE set. > > So is the code misleading? Was it designed to just meet the minimal > requirement of having a date-like string to comform to the mbox > format? What's the disadvantage to using the real commit date?
Having it as a fixed date-looking string was to help /etc/magic entry people may want to invent to detect format-patch output.
Re: git format-patch from date never set
Okay, I can see that. I suppose I don't really have an argument in favor of using the real date, other than aesthetics.
-- Dan
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Junio C Hamano<gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Dan Savilonis <djs@n-cube.org> writes: > >> On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Alex Riesen<raa.lkml@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Neither. This is not a date, but a part of "loosely defined" mbox format. >>> >> >> In the examples of mbox format I have found, the date in the From: >> line is generally the same as in the Date: line, albeit in a more >> ambiguous format. Further, the the git code treats it as a date and >> attempts to set it. It remains at the default date only because >> git_committer_info() is called without GIT_COMMITTER_DATE set. >> >> So is the code misleading? Was it designed to just meet the minimal >> requirement of having a date-like string to comform to the mbox >> format? What's the disadvantage to using the real commit date? > > Having it as a fixed date-looking string was to help /etc/magic entry > people may want to invent to detect format-patch output. > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >