Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: >> 2. Do we want to introduce a --in-body-date option or something to >> format-patch which would include an in-body Date:, similar to the >> in-body From:? (Also, while we're at it, maybe we could include an >> --in-body-from to force that to happen since that's been a feature that >> was requested in the past[2]) > > I doubt I'd use it myself, but I wouldn't be opposed to an in-body-date > option. You'd perhaps want to define some heuristics to avoid > uninteresting noise. If your patch is from 10 minutes ago, and you are > just now sending it in, adding the extra date header is mostly just > clutter. So perhaps you'd want it to kick in when the date is more than > N time units or something. I do not have a fundamental objection to the --in-body-date option, either, although I do not want to see it used when sending patches to this list. As long as it is a command-line per-invocation option, I do not think you'd need any "uninteresting noise filtering" logic. A configuration variable to always do so would cause a huge headache to keep the behaviour sensible when sending one's own patches, and would require such filtering, I would think. Thanks.
