On Thu, Sep 02, 2021 at 12:51:58PM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote: > On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 06:50:36PM +0200, Xinglu Chen wrote: > > > Commit dates don't have a consistent meaning: are they the time of > > > first revision of a commit? Final revision of a commit? Time of > > > signing? Pushing? They are often useful to estimate a timeline, but > > > it's common for a Git "timeline" to jump back and forth by months or a > > > year due to long-running development branches being merged in, or due > > > to a "commit and then polish by rebasing" workflow. > > > > I would say the the time of the final commit would be the best option, > > but I agree that it can be ambiguous.
Reading your message again, I think you misunderstood what I wrote. I wasn't asking what date we should choose to include in our package versions. I was asking, "What does the Git commit timestamp describe?" And the answer is that there is not a clear answer, and it depends on the workflow of the person who made the Git commit. My point being that a Git repo does not offer us meaningful information about when anything happened.
