Re: ChangeLog dates

[Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com>]

On Fri, 28 Nov 2014 16:06:11 +0200 Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote: 

>> From: Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com>
>> 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