# git format-patch from date never set 5 messages from 2009-07-25 to 2009-07-26. Participants: Dan Savilonis, Alex Riesen, Junio C Hamano. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/20233 ## Dan Savilonis, 2009-07-25 21:39 Subject: git format-patch from date never set Message-ID: <325c62f60907251439n6f3f661dhf0e76a74ce1eaec8@mail.gmail.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/325c62f60907251439n6f3f661dhf0e76a74ce1eaec8%40mail.gmail.com ``` 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 Riesen, 2009-07-25 22:31 Subject: Re: git format-patch from date never set Message-ID: <81b0412b0907251531u7566813fr10bdd70187e9aca6@mail.gmail.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/81b0412b0907251531u7566813fr10bdd70187e9aca6%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: <325c62f60907251439n6f3f661dhf0e76a74ce1eaec8@mail.gmail.com> ``` On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 23:39, Dan Savilonis 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. ``` ## Dan Savilonis, 2009-07-25 22:49 Subject: Re: git format-patch from date never set Message-ID: <325c62f60907251549o27ebc8f2gcd1d728adb662ffd@mail.gmail.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/325c62f60907251549o27ebc8f2gcd1d728adb662ffd%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: <81b0412b0907251531u7566813fr10bdd70187e9aca6@mail.gmail.com> ``` On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Alex Riesen 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 Hamano, 2009-07-25 23:03 Subject: Re: git format-patch from date never set Message-ID: <7v7hxwtlf7.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/7v7hxwtlf7.fsf%40alter.siamese.dyndns.org In-Reply-To: <325c62f60907251549o27ebc8f2gcd1d728adb662ffd@mail.gmail.com> ``` Dan Savilonis writes: > On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Alex Riesen 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. ``` ## Dan Savilonis, 2009-07-26 00:06 Subject: Re: git format-patch from date never set Message-ID: <325c62f60907251706i4d9bf656n8e094a22a8736924@mail.gmail.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/325c62f60907251706i4d9bf656n8e094a22a8736924%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: <7v7hxwtlf7.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> ``` 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 wrote: > Dan Savilonis writes: > >> On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Alex Riesen 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 > ```