On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Felipe Contreras
<felipe.contre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If roundtripping to other version control systems is an argument,
>> adding sub-second timestamps could potentially create as many problems
>> as it solves. For example, I've been using the hg-git bridge, and it
>> supports roundtripping between git and mercurial today (for most repos
>> I've tried anyway). I may have missed something, but this could imply
>> that mercurial doesn't care about sub-second timestamps either. If so,
>> and if git suddenly were to record it, it would no longer be as
>> straight forward to represent git history in hg.
> I'm not entirely sure. The API seems to return a float for the time,
> but at least as far I can see, it never has any decimals anyway.
> But it doesn't really matter, mercurial doesn't have a committer
> information either. This is solved by tools like hg-git by storing the
> information in an 'extra' field, which can store anything.

True. For many commits though, hg-git doesn't need any extra fields,
as far as I've seen. A timestamp incompatibility would require extra
info on every commit.

> Either way, I don't see the point in changing git's commit format for
> external tools. The git-notes functionality works just fine for that,
> it just needs to be attached in the relevant places, like 'git
> fast-export'.

I agree. Even encoding info in the commit message works fine, and
git-svn already does that.

> BTW. Have you checked git's native support for hg?[1]

That's been added after I played with this last, I'll have a look.

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

Reply via email to