From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: ChangeLog dates Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 14:52:40 -0500 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <87wq6f2jcn.fsf@lifelogs.com> References: <21622.54248.721592.407612@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <83ioi0oc6a.fsf@gnu.org> <87a93c5fgt.fsf@lifelogs.com> <83lhmvn2qi.fsf@gnu.org> <87oarr4mg9.fsf@lifelogs.com> <83d287mvn5.fsf@gnu.org> <87fvd34ecq.fsf@lifelogs.com> <83bnnrmncc.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1417205453 6551 80.91.229.3 (28 Nov 2014 20:10:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 20:10:53 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Nov 28 21:10:46 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XuRsM-0001o6-Dm for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2014 21:10:46 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45743 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XuRsL-0005rZ-Tl for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2014 15:10:45 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40109) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XuRrn-0005rB-CD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2014 15:10:16 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XuRri-0003sQ-5s for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2014 15:10:11 -0500 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:45017) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XuRrh-0003ps-Vg for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2014 15:10:06 -0500 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XuRdA-0002Jz-34 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2014 20:55:04 +0100 Original-Received: from c-98-229-61-72.hsd1.ma.comcast.net ([98.229.61.72]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2014 20:55:04 +0100 Original-Received: from tzz by c-98-229-61-72.hsd1.ma.comcast.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2014 20:55:04 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Lines: 25 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-98-229-61-72.hsd1.ma.comcast.net X-Face: bd.DQ~'29fIs`T_%O%C\g%6jW)yi[zuz6; d4V0`@y-~$#3P_Ng{@m+e4o<4P'#(_GJQ%TT= D}[Ep*b!\e,fBZ'j_+#"Ps?s2!4H2-Y"sx" Mail-Copies-To: never User-Agent: Gnus/5.130012 (Ma Gnus v0.12) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:wvz7SSDuWujx4FZ+0lniu7w8Gk4= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:178439 Archived-At: On Fri, 28 Nov 2014 16:06:11 +0200 Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: Ted Zlatanov >> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 08:57:41 -0500 >> EZ> Seen from the master's POV, keeping the dates from the original EZ> (branch) commits would be rewriting history, because the actual date EZ> the commits appeared on master are different. >> >> But the commit's date is "baked" into it by Git. So there's no "master" >> POV for commit dates, only for when the commits are accessible via >> "master" (and both dates are relevant, hence I suggested adding a note). EZ> I'm not talking about Git's history, or accessing history through Git. EZ> I'm talking about ChangeLog files looked at by people who have only EZ> the release tarball (which is why we produce ChangeLog files). They EZ> don't have Git, they have just the ChangeLog files, and those EZ> ChangeLog files should IMO reflect the ordered sequence of commits to EZ> the branch from which the tarball was created. I understand. I personally would be OK with either the original dates with a side note, or the adjusted dates in such a packaged ChangeLog. Thanks for explaining Ted