Hi Junio, On Sat, 7 Jul 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > > >> Does the "gitgitgadget" thing lie on the Date: e-mail header? > > > > No, GitGitGadget takes the literal output from `git format-patch`, as far > > as I can tell. So if at all, it is `format-patch` that is lying. > > format-patch faithfully records the fact about the commit that is > made into the patch. How pieces of information should (or should > not) be used depends on the purpose of the application that uses > its output. I guess this is one of the fallouts for abusing the `format-patch|am` dance for `rebase--am`. > I'd suggest to match what send-email does, which is to notice but > use the current date when adding a Date: header. An option to lie > to SMTP servers may be OK but I do not think we want to encourage > such a behaviour by making it the default. I opened a PR to add a TODO: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/gitgitgadget/pull/15 > What is missing in the core-git tools is an ability to tell > send-email to optionaly add an in-body header to record the author > date of the original. We add an in-body header that records the > real author when it is different from the sender automatically, and > it is OK to have an option to allow doing so (but not encouraged > around here---it is easier to reason about the resulting history for > everybody, perhaps other than the original author, to record the > first time you show the change to the public as the author time). Pull Request-based workflows keep the original author date all the time. If that is not desired, we need to do more than paper over it by adjusting `send-email`. Ciao, Dscho
