Re: Everyone, please stop making my life more difficult

[David Kastrup]

Sam Steingold <address@hidden> writes:

>> * Yuri Khan <address@hidden> [2014-09-12 21:44:24 +0700]:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 9:36 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>>> If the commit timestamp were anything but "tomorrow" it would be a bug.
>>> The whole point of a commit timestamp is to track who created a commit
>>> when.  Since a rebase creates commits, obviously the commit timestamp
>>> will correspond to the time of the rebase, and the commit author will
>>> correspond to the person doing the rebase.
>>>
>>> Which is exactly why using "commit author/timestamp" is not going to cut
>>> it as a unique identifier when rebases come into play.
>>
>> Neither does author/timestamp uniquely identify a commit in a
>> rebaseful commit graph. But at least the commits having the same
>> author/timestamp all conceptually represent the same change.
>
> Not at all - if we accept the notion that rebase changes timestamp.
> E.g., if I work for a week making 20 separate unrelated commits on
> different days and then rebase, then all the 20 commits will have the
> same timestamp.

Git has different timestamps for author and committer.  Rebasing does
not change author timestamp and identity.

-- 
David Kastrup