Re: git and time

--- Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote:

quoted

Ok, the word "history" in the context of git primarily means the order of changes not the

when?

quoted

Would it be a conceptual or technical issue for git to directly track the local time of
merges/changesets?

True merges _get_ tracked - they are commits too (they just have multiple 
parents).

But it's only the time the merge was done that gets tracked, not the time 
the merge was then pushed out to somebody else.

What is the difference between a merge and a "merge then pushed out"? There are at least some
situations where a repo would prefer to know its local time of a merge or pulled in merge and
anyway a local repo probably should not in any way be dependent on nor _trust_ all remote repos
timestamps...?

-Matt


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com