On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> If roundtripping to other version control systems is an argument, >> adding sub-second timestamps could potentially create as many problems >> as it solves. For example, I've been using the hg-git bridge, and it >> supports roundtripping between git and mercurial today (for most repos >> I've tried anyway). I may have missed something, but this could imply >> that mercurial doesn't care about sub-second timestamps either. If so, >> and if git suddenly were to record it, it would no longer be as >> straight forward to represent git history in hg. > > I'm not entirely sure. The API seems to return a float for the time, > but at least as far I can see, it never has any decimals anyway. > > But it doesn't really matter, mercurial doesn't have a committer > information either. This is solved by tools like hg-git by storing the > information in an 'extra' field, which can store anything. True. For many commits though, hg-git doesn't need any extra fields, as far as I've seen. A timestamp incompatibility would require extra info on every commit. > Either way, I don't see the point in changing git's commit format for > external tools. The git-notes functionality works just fine for that, > it just needs to be attached in the relevant places, like 'git > fast-export'. I agree. Even encoding info in the commit message works fine, and git-svn already does that. > BTW. Have you checked git's native support for hg?[1] That's been added after I played with this last, I'll have a look. Cheers, Thomas -- 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