Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 4 Jan 2021 10:52:40 -0800
From:      Enji Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com>
To:        Alan Somers <asomers@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, John Kennedy <warlock@phouka.net>, Current FreeBSD <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: git non-time-sequential logs
Message-ID:  <7E3C7B7F-A127-45DE-A4B2-8C42F707E5D2@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOtMX2hwdprzdr-Cci4XL8mO%2BgRd%2Bp_4s%2Bj7YkymBCLztGuJtA@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <X/NA4Jk/P%2Bih5WSD@phouka1.phouka.net> <X/NH3cb5eeweRibn@phouka1.phouka.net> <94447.1609779520@critter.freebsd.dk> <CAOtMX2hwdprzdr-Cci4XL8mO%2BgRd%2Bp_4s%2Bj7YkymBCLztGuJtA@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

> On Jan 4, 2021, at 9:05 AM, Alan Somers <asomers@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>=20
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 9:58 AM Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk =
<mailto:phk@phk.freebsd.dk>> wrote:
>=20
>> --------
>> John Kennedy writes:
>>=20
>>> This might be perfectly natural and just new to me, but when I look =
at
>> the
>>> git logs this morning I see things like this (editing by me):
>>>=20
>>>      Date:   Mon Jan 4 17:30:00 2021 +0100
>>>      Date:   Mon Dec 14 18:56:56 2020 +0100
>>>      Date:   Tue Dec 15 13:50:00 2020 +0100
>>>      Date:   Mon Jan 4 16:23:10 2021 +0100
>>>=20
>>>  I've always assumed that the "Date:" there was when the commit
>> happened,
>>=20
>> It is, but it is the time it was committed in the first git repos it =
was
>> committed to,
>> in this case the repos of the committer in question.
>>=20
>> Without taking a position on the merits of this design-choice, I
>> just want to point out that it means that timestamps should be
>> viewed very sceptically, since they depend on the *local* clock on
>> somebodys computer, not on the central repos machine.
>>=20
>=20
> I'll be more frank than phk: it sucks.  Git's commit dates are =
basically
> useless.  But there are a few ways to improve the situation:
> 1) If we start using Gitlab or something similar, we can ban pushes
> directly to head.  Then we'll be able to trust the Dates on Gitlab's =
merge
> commits.
> 2) Perhaps we can use the Git Notes to add a field for the Date when a
> commit was pushed to the master server?
> 3) The internet is full of suggestions for how to change the way =
commits
> are displayed locally to mediate this problem.  But they all seem to
> involve changes to the working copy's configuration, not the master's. =
 And
> I haven't gotten any way to work.

I actually find the non-sequential dates a feature: if someone reorders =
commits in a stack, e.g., `git rebase -I` I find it curious wondering =
why things were committed in the order they were.

The point is to stop looking at git like svn: commits should be done as =
larger bodies of work (merge commits), as opposed to single atomic =
commits.

Cheers,
-Enji=



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7E3C7B7F-A127-45DE-A4B2-8C42F707E5D2>