--- Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Ok, the word "history" in the context of git primarily means the order of changes not the > when? > > Would it be a conceptual or technical issue for git to directly track the local time of > > merges/changesets? > > True merges _get_ tracked - they are commits too (they just have multiple > parents). > > But it's only the time the merge was done that gets tracked, not the time > the merge was then pushed out to somebody else. What is the difference between a merge and a "merge then pushed out"? There are at least some situations where a repo would prefer to know its local time of a merge or pulled in merge and anyway a local repo probably should not in any way be dependent on nor _trust_ all remote repos timestamps...? -Matt __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html