On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 09:46:19AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > So, I "wasted" (not really---this was a fruitful validation that is > a part of a review process) some time to play with this on top of The word "wasted" is appearing in a lot of people's emails in this thread. ;) So let me just clarify that in the original I meant that I spent time puzzling over why it was not working, which was a waste because Felipe had already said it required the other patch. It definitely would have helped if he had explained _why_ the other patch was necessary. But to be fair, the fault was at least as much mine for not heeding what he did say. But reviewers reproducing and tinkering is most certainly not a waste of time in general, and I didn't mean to imply it was (or that the patch itself was a waste of time). > Formatted output from a repository working tree changes from > "04/14/2023" to "2023-04-13". The value change may be intended, but > I am not sure if the format change was intended or even welcome. If > we want to correct the date format, it can totally be done in a > separate patch, or a separate series even, with some justification > in the proposed log message, I think. I think the change is welcome and intended. I would not mind seeing the two changes (format change, and using commit date versus "now") conceptually split, but I think it's much more tangled. Asciidoctor is already producing y-m-d dates, and python asciidoc is using m/d/y. Changing the latter requires passing in not just a format but the actual date. If we want it to be the current date, then we have to get that from somewhere, which may introduce portability questions (e.g., can we rely on "date"?). So doing it all in one patch, though this conversation may indicate that the commit message could do a better job of explaining the goal and implications. -Peff
