On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 06:06:39PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> > I think the original rationale was that it's OK for us to allow some
> > sloppiness when _viewing_ commits, since you will generally notice the
> > problem. But when making commits, it's better to be careful, since you
> > may be setting the sha1 in stone.
> > These days we have two tools that could help:
> > 1. approxidate_careful will do a regular approxidate, but keep track
> > of whether we found anything even remotely useful. That doesn't mean
> > you can't still get unexpected results, but at least some truly
> > useless cases return errors.
> > 2. For commits with a different author and committer, we mention the
> > author name in the post-commit summary. We could do the same with a
> > timestamp that was given (i.e., mentioning it in a standard format)
> > to give the user another opportunity to double-check what we parsed.
> I think it would make sense if we followed both of those points.
Here are patches to do so.
[1/4]: commit: use split_ident_line to compare author/committer
[2/4]: pretty: make show_ident_date public
[3/4]: commit: print "Date" line when the user has set date
[4/4]: commit: accept more date formats for "--date"
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