Re: [PATCH] Changed timestamp behavior of options -c/-C/--amend

2009/10/30 Junio C Hamano [off-list ref]:

Erick Mattos [off-list ref] writes:

A patch always changes something so the title "Changed ... behavior" does
not carry enough information

Sorry but I thought It was enough.  First submitted patch.

(besides, you write logs as if you are making
an order to the codebase to "do this!").

Not a chance!  Just trying to help.  A way for paying back all the
benefits I enjoy by your software.

quoted

The code herein changes commit timestamp recording from a source in a
more intuitive way.

Description:

Remove the above.  Instead, start with a description of what the current
code does, e.g.

   Subject: commit -c/-C/--amend: allow 'current' timestamp to be used

   When these options are used, the timestamp recorded in the newly
   created commit is always taken from the original commit.

Demand accepted.

Then the rest of your text flows much more nicely...

quoted

When we use one of the options above we are normally trying to do mainly
two things: one is using the source as a template and second is to
recreate a commit with corrections.

In the first case timestamp should by default be taken by the time we
are doing the commit, not by the source.  On the second case the actual
behavior is acceptable.

... and the reader does not have to wonder what "the actual behavior" is;
instead you can say "the current behavior" here.

quoted

...
Those options are also useful for --amend option which is by default
behaving the same.

Also the reader does not have to wonder what "the same" means here.

Done again.

I agree that the issue the patch addresses is worth improving, and I think
it is sensible to default to reuse the timestamp for -C and not to reuse
for --amend.  I am not sure about -c myself, but it probably shouldn't
reuse the timestamp by default.

I however think (old|new)-timestamp is suboptimal.

We already have --reuse-message, so why not trigger this with a single
option --(no-)reuse-timestamp?

Don't you think it would be a little big?  I had compared the option
name so it would be more or less of reuse-message.