Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx>: > Honestly, I do think you have missed some fundamental issues. > https://public-inbox.org/git/ab3222ab-9121-9534-1472-fac790bf08a4@xxxxxxxxx/ > discusses this further. Have re-read. That was a different pair of proposals. I have abandoned the idea of forcing timestamp uniqueness entirely - that was a hack to define a canonical commit order, and my new RFC describes a better way to get this. I still think finer-grained timestamps would be a good idea, but that is much less important than the different set of properties we can guarantee via the new RFC. -- <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
