On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 4:30 AM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:23:37PM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > >> Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx>: >> > But I really wonder if anybody actually cares about adding sub-second >> > timestamp support, or if it is merely "because SVN has it". >> >> There's actually one possible other reason to care. 1-second granularity >> isn't quite fine enough to guarantee that a (committer, timestamp) >> pair is a unique key. 1 microsecond granularity would be. > > You can't guarantee that such a pair is unique, anyway, due to clock > skew. > > A much more compelling argument to me would be that you are doing some > bidirectional magic between git and svn, and you want to make make sure > that an svn->git->svn translation will result in the exact same bytes. > Then the argument is still "because SVN has it", but at least it is "and > we interoperate with it" and not simply chasing a cool but useless > feature. But the same can be said of mercurial and bzr. This can be solved attaching some external SCM information in notes, and somehow make fast-export throw that info along with the commit. For now the solution has been to append the extra information into the commit message, which is ugly and hacky, but it works. -- Felipe Contreras -- 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