On 20/04/18 09:11, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi Phillip, > > On Thu, 19 Apr 2018, Phillip Wood wrote: > >> On 18/04/18 19:15, Johannes Sixt wrote: >>> Am 18.04.2018 um 19:47 schrieb Phillip Wood: >>>> On 18/04/18 12:27, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Apr 18 2018, Phillip Wood wrote: >>>>>> From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> as it is created by running an separate instance of 'git commit'. If >>>>>> the reworded commit is follow by further picks, those later commits >>>>>> will have an earlier committer date than the reworded one. This is >>>>>> caused by git caching the default date used when GIT_COMMITTER_DATE is >>>>>> not set. Fix this by not caching the date. >>>>>> >>>>>> Users expect commits to have the same author and committer dates when >>>>>> the don't explicitly set them. As the date is now updated each time >>>>>> git_author_info() or git_committer_info() is run it is possible to end >>>>>> up with different author and committer dates. Fix this for >>>>>> 'commit-tree', 'notes' and 'merge' by using a single date in >>>>>> commit_tree_extended() and passing it explicitly to the new functions >>>>>> git_author_info_with_date() and git_committer_info_with_date() when >>>>>> neither the author date nor the committer date are explicitly >>>>>> set. 'commit' always passes the author date to commit_tree_extended() >>>>>> and relied on the date caching to have the same committer and author >>>>>> dates when neither was specified. Fix this by setting >>>>>> GIT_COMMITTER_DATE to be the same as the author date passed to >>>>>> commit_tree_extended(). >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> Reported-by: Johannes Sixt <j6t@xxxxxxxx> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm slightly nervous that setting GIT_COMMITTER_DATE in >>>>>> builtin/commit.c will break someone's hook script. Maybe it would be >>>>>> better to add a committer parameter to commit_tree() and >>>>>> commit_tree_extended(). >>> >>> While I like the basic theme of your patch, I think we should fix this >>> case in a much simpler way, namely, use the infrastructure that was >>> introduced for git-am. >>> >>> I've shamelessly lifted the commit message from your patch. >> >> Thanks, that is a better way (I'm annoyed with myself for not having >> noticed reset_ident_date() when I edited the function above it) > > Don't be too annoyed. I did remember that The Linus had complained about > something similar and assumed that it had been fixed in the meantime, but > I failed to find it within 30 minutes where I tried to dig through > public-inbox and pu. Thanks, that makes we feel better about it (thanks for taking the time to try and find the original mail as well) Phillip > Thanks Hannes for remembering, and for coming up with the final form of > the patch! > > Ciao, > Dscho >
