On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 05:07:34PM -0800, Shawn O. Pearce wrote: > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Felipe Contreras > <felipe.contre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 1:12 AM, Eric S. Raymond <e...@thyrsus.com> wrote: > >> Shawn Pearce <spea...@spearce.org>: > >>> Well... if we added a fractional seconds to a commit, older versions > >>> of Git will scream loudly and refuse to work with the new commit. That > >>> would create a fork of Git. > >> > >> So much for that idea, I guess. > >> > >> Unless..I don't know how git's database representations work. Are they > >> version-stamped in any way? If so, some slightly painful hackery would > >> get around that problem. > > > > % git cat-file -p HEAD > > > > You'll see exactly how git stores commits. Changing anything in there > > must be done carefully. > > Apparently there is no room to change in these fields without breaking > compatibility with all current versions of Git. So its not just done > carefully... its deciding to make Git 2.0 that is not compatible with > any Git 1.x release.
There is room for new headers, and older versions of git will ignore them. You could add a new "committer-timestamp" field that elaborates on the timestamp included on the committer line. Newer versions of git would respect it, and older versions would fall back to using the committer timestamp. But I really wonder if anybody actually cares about adding sub-second timestamp support, or if it is merely "because SVN has it". -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html