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" -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
