Because git doesn't care about timestamps. It stores them as comments
(albeit auto-formatted comments) and relies on the dependency chain to
provide history.
Ok, the word "history" in the context of git primarily means the order of changes not the when?
Would it be a conceptual or technical issue for git to directly track the local time of
merges/changesets?
-Matt
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com