Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2021 08:17:33 -0800 From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org> To: marklmi@yahoo.com, Ulrich =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sp=F6rlein?= <uqs@freebsd.org>, Graham Perrin <grahamperrin@gmail.com>, freebsd-git <freebsd-git@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: cgit, ages and chronological order Message-ID: <YZUrHaPfgs5YD2Vy@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <YZTOE5jPwxXrkgbY@benson.stsp.name> References: <9766b3e1-fb5d-1993-46e2-057e2567315a@gmail.com> <CAJ9axoT6kEwC%2Bt5zHSKPSFgFmaOt8-CXPAG5jsanWobT4LZhpA@mail.gmail.com> <36020FD7-32A4-4869-B6A2-2622F50F6478@yahoo.com> <YZTOE5jPwxXrkgbY@benson.stsp.name>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 10:40:35AM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote: S> Generally, sorting commits by committer timestamp will give the order S> most people would expect. Unless some client has an unsynced clock, and S> nothing can be done about that without a hypothetical smarter server and S> client which support server-side rewriting of commits during push. Don't agree with that. When you rebase or amend, original timestamp doesn't change. A commit can sit for month in reviews & testing, can morph to a quite different code and still preserve old timestamp. Then it is finally pushed and most people (well, at least myself) find the timestamp that arrived to official git quite misleading. I already have had problems with that doing "eye bisecting" - looking through history and searching for a commit that could have caused a regression. -- Gleb Smirnoff
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?YZUrHaPfgs5YD2Vy>