Am 03/14/17 um 01:27 schrieb Jeff Jensen: >> The date of the commit is not the date it got committed to master, but the > date it got committed to some branch, no longer existing after the commit. > If this is the way GIT works, so be it. I just don't like it. It could not > be more confusing. > > A couple of thoughts in case they help you. > > 1. Git has "author date" and "commit date" for each commit. > * author date is the original date of the first commit, never changes. > * commit date is the last time the commit was modified (e.g. amended, > committed to a branch). > Each date is useful, depending on the situation investigating.
Yes. It is lacking information about when a commit got added to a specific branch. Create a branch of master, work on it for a few months, then merge it back to master. Information about when the months old commits have been merged to master is missing. Maybe I am just using the tool incorrectly. Currently I am creating a branch from master to work on using 'git pull --rebase origin/master' followed by a fast-forward push to master using 'git push origin branchname:master'. That way the commits appear in order. If I would do 'git merge' the months old commits appear at a months old place in time on master with possibly other commits done in between by others mixed in. This is what 'man git-merge' tells me is the way things are supposed to be. I am not even sure I got that correctly. > > To help with the date displays, which git client(s) do you use? git and gitk. > Please ask for more git help if you like. Many people on the list know it > well, and happy to help your productivity. Thanks for the clarifications. Regards, -- Christian --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
