On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 07:11:45AM -0700, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 01:13 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > Speaking strictly in terms of implementation, David Woodhouse's > > bk-commits mailer scripts could probably easily be tweaked to -not- set > > an explicit Date header on the outgoing emails. > > > > It then becomes a matter of deciding whether this is a good idea or not :) > > The original changeset date is also in the body of the mail anyway so it > wouldn't be lost if we changed this. I have no real preference either > way. Bear in mind that the Date: header you got would then be the time > my script ran, not the time it was actually committed. That may differ > by days, in some cases (thankfully not often).
I've just been using sort by arrival as an imperfect, but still mostly correct work-around (a few things have shown up after the email with the tag, but only a few). I'd argue having the mails have the fuged date is useful when trying to re-create sub-sets of a given tree. Note that for the specific problem Ben has (looking at all ChangeSets from A to B), I've got a kinda slow script that fakes the bk-commits messages given two repositories, if this sounds of any interest to anyone. -- Tom Rini http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/