Re: ChangeLog dates

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com>
> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 06:02:46 -0500
> 
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2014 10:33:41 +0200 Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote: 
> 
> EZ> Until now we did the latter, i.e. updated the entry's date to the date
> EZ> of the merge.  I don't know what's TRT when ChangeLog's will be
> EZ> generated.
> >> 
> >> It's going to have to be the original date, because AFAIK it's part of
> >> the commit hash.
> 
> EZ> Of course; even I know that.
> 
> I didn't before I checked :)
> 
> EZ> But the script that generates ChangeLog from the commit log could
> EZ> modify the dates, if we decide that to be TRT.
> 
> It will be painful and I think faking the date was an artifact of the
> static ChangeLog system rather than actually needed. It would probably
> be better to preserve the original commit date in the auto-generated
> ChangeLog but add a note that the commit was merged/backported to branch
> X on date Y.

Seen from the master's POV, keeping the dates from the original
(branch) commits would be rewriting history, because the actual date
the commits appeared on master are different.