"Kristoffer Haugsbakk" <kristofferhaugsbakk@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > As a Git user, I don’t understand why some people want to fiddle with > this field in rewrite operations. It’s very hidden (apparently you have > to use something like `git log --format=fuller` to reveal it). FWIW, as a Git user, I don't, either. It is justifiable for "rebase -i" to be aware of the option, merely because the underlying "git am" had it. I think "--ignore-date" option falls into a similar bucket, but it is of lessor evil between the two (at least I can see a legitimate reasoning behind use of that option). > I can’t speak for power users. But regular users? Well I see questions > about being very deliberate about setting this field on rewrite > operations on StackOverflow (at least one time). But I can only guess > *why* they are particular about it (this part is often not explained). > And I don’t know if they know the true “spirit” behind the field. Very nicely said. There _might_ be a legitimate reason to futz with the committer date, but I do not think of a good reason why it makes sense to replace it with the author date. They are separate fields because they mean different things---your mention of "true spirit" is spot-on. > That option was added to git-am(1). So not a rewrite operation. Rather > a “lie” (as it was documented on that commit). Yes, I do not offhand see a reason why the option should exist. I won't be the person who says "no, it is valuable, do not touch it" if somebody proposes to drop it (from all places) at a major version boundary. Thanks.
