Junio C Hamano wrote: > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Formatted output from a repository working tree changes from > > "04/14/2023" to "2023-04-13". The value change may be intended,... > > Forgot to mention another thing. While it may be a good idea to tie > the datestamp etched in the formatted result to that of the source > material, rather than the date the formatter happened to have been > run, the committer date is more appropriate than the author date for > that purpose, as the former is the date that the change made on the > latter date (which is earlier) has become a part of the whole, from > which the formatted result was produced. > > It may not make a big practical difference: Or _any_ practical difference. > * For an individual who is trying out the changes just made, the > committer time and the author time are likely identical. > > * For a release process, what is at the tip of the released branch > is likely be the release notes and version bump, recorded by the > releaser, and again the committer time and the author time are > likely identical. > > * For results of a pull request, the times are likely identical for > the merge commit. Agreed that committer == author in these cases. > but from the philosophical standpoint, it does matter. I prefer to focus on the real rather than hypothetical (or philosophical). I do create my own releases (e.g. 2.40.0+fc1) and a real issue with the version script (rather than philosphical) is that it only considers annotated tags, so I have to carry a patch that adds `--tags` to the `git describe` command. Shouldn't dealing with real issues of real people have a higher priority than philosophical issues? For the record, I do agree the committer date feels more proper, but it doesn't make any real difference, I just wonder about the priorities. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras
