From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Everyone, please stop making my life more difficult Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 16:36:59 +0200 Organization: Organization?!? Message-ID: <87ioksx5v8.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <20140912043652.4D6D8380604@snark.thyrsus.com> <83zje56ymd.fsf@gnu.org> <20140912083430.GA32586@thyrsus.com> <87mwa59i1r.fsf@igel.home> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1410532678 28232 80.91.229.3 (12 Sep 2014 14:37:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 14:37:58 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Sep 12 16:37:50 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 1XSRyw-0002yb-88 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 16:37:50 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45477 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XSRyv-0004EA-SX for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 10:37:49 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46772) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XSRyb-0004CY-EG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 10:37:35 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XSRyQ-0006fN-JC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 10:37:29 -0400 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:58119) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XSRyQ-0006fB-Cm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 10:37:18 -0400 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XSRyO-0002gK-Om for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 16:37:16 +0200 Original-Received: from x2f500ac.dyn.telefonica.de ([2.245.0.172]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 16:37:16 +0200 Original-Received: from dak by x2f500ac.dyn.telefonica.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 16:37:16 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 31 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: x2f500ac.dyn.telefonica.de X-Face: 2FEFf>]>q>2iw=B6, xrUubRI>pR&Ml9=ao@P@i)L:\urd*t9M~y1^:+Y]'C0~{mAl`oQuAl \!3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN; i"; /yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~(5eZ41to5f%E@'ELIi$t^ Vc\LWP@J5p^rst0+('>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:\z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:3kfTEFn7PuCgQDK5JRkniAG8rgE= 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:174220 Archived-At: Sam Steingold writes: >> * Andreas Schwab [2014-09-12 13:47:44 +0200]: >> >> "Eric S. Raymond" writes: >> >>> This choice helps avoid collisions. It is unlikely that one >>> committer will ever manage two commits in the same clock second. >> >> That's pretty easy if you are rebasing. > > Are you saying that rebasing changes the timestamp?! The commit timestamp? Most certainly. > I.e., I make a commit X today and tomorrow rebase (= remove X; pull from > upstream; reapply X) it. > Is X now dated today or tomorrow? > If the answer is "tomorrow", this looks like a bug. If the commit timestamp were anything but "tomorrow" it would be a bug. The whole point of a commit timestamp is to track who created a commit when. Since a rebase creates commits, obviously the commit timestamp will correspond to the time of the rebase, and the commit author will correspond to the person doing the rebase. Which is exactly why using "commit author/timestamp" is not going to cut it as a unique identifier when rebases come into play. -- David Kastrup