On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 18:48:11 -0700 (PDT) Matthew L Foster <mfoster167@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I actually understand that and agree. All I've been saying is it (git or gitweb.cgi) should prefer > the local timestamp rather than any "remote" timestamps for no other reason than to minimize the > possibility of timestamps being grossly inaccurate. But any local time stamp would be a _lie_. The time stamp in the commit records when it was actually created. And as Junio has pointed out, hundreds of commits will typically arrive in a repo at the exact same time. Your suggestion would have them all showing the exact same time. That's not helpful, and it loses important factual information. You'd lose the information of when that commit was actually _in truth_ created. The vast majority of the time, everyone has their clock set to a reasonable value and this all just works. In the rare case when someone has their clock set seriously out of whack, Git accurately records and reports that fact too. Really.. this just isn't a problem. Everything in Git continues to work exactly as it should. It may be interesting to see when a commit arrived locally, but it shouldn't be a substitute for the _real_ accurate time recorded in each commit that tells us when it was _really_, _in fact_, _in truth_ created. Sean - 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