On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 01:08:17PM -0500, David Copeland wrote: > The patch file looks correct. I'm wondering if this is a result of > both repos being connected to svn? > > my process was: > > - format patch > - go to other repo > - git svn rebase This will change the date of commits already in svn because it uses git rebase (with all its problems, see its manpage) > - apply patch > - git svn dcommit > > Could dcommit change the dates since, to svn, they are appear as > commits right now? > > Dave > > On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 11:58:42AM -0500, David Copeland wrote: > > > >> The first option worked, insomuch the history of diffs is preserved, > >> but the dates are all today. > > > > That's odd. It works fine here. Can you confirm that the correct dates > > in the "patches" file (i.e., the output of format-patch)? What are you > > using to look at the patches? Note that gitk will show you both the > > "committer" and the "author" fields. The "author" field should have the > > original author and time of the patch, but the "committer" will be you, > > today. > > > >> The second option was a little over my head; is the idea there that > >> you are setting up a branch that has ONLY the files I care about (with > >> all their history), and then I pull from the other repo as if they are > >> related? That seems like it might preserve the dates... > > > > Yes, that is exactly what is happening in the second example. > > > > -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
