Re: git and time

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote:

David Lang [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

quoted

You are right that a "Merged Date:" in gitweb would be useful information to
show for each commit, but it's not straightforward given the design of git.

would it?

remember that a pach could be merged to many trees in any order. which
merge date do you want to know about?

The date that repository I am looking at with gitweb first had
that commit, of course.  What other dates did you have in mind?

if that repository is then merged into another one, what date would that second 
one record for that commit? the date it was pulled there?

in many cases this would seem to be useless or distracting information (you 
already display where in the history the merge took place, do you really need to 
attach that date to all changes that arrive from the branch?)

if you have something like

a-b-c-d-e-f-g
              \
h------i------j

or worse

     a
      \
b-----c-d
  \   /   \
   e-f-----g
            \
h-i---------j

do you really want the date of j attached to all the changes a-g?

and if this information really is important, wouldn't you want to export the 
info out (as j then gets merged into m somewhere else)

David Lang