From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77FFC1F955 for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 17:15:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753124AbcG2RPc (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Jul 2016 13:15:32 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:59854 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752269AbcG2RPb (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Jul 2016 13:15:31 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DD4B32349; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 13:15:29 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=SuMhvRRvjuh94cugxhkY4KtukcU=; b=hK6qPA 9DAK+bxb+xYay90iCrZsrY9m3BoZxLrQGvdcOIEv7GQGnw7AfWm9KqbFyKyNo8tY 4TQ1zKw565KZKQdaqgwExrbLIJTZ15o854tosYgjvJm1kZeISj832FMIKLRwpNGc juAZoFQqY+usUjytFvI9ULE8RyYVnbvhDHmnY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=UJGp8f6ZTWBy2Zwj7qMg82jyv0bWxRD8 cbW/QPxZ7wKpv1SckaV+JAaKxqsTltpirLvsF9C1GS1iauMLa3alisTNzF+5a4TF RTGEa+i86H46rfF5xKwp3zbdc5DfQeJ6vLsiTd+RHFDqYIe5CZ7NyPpSmmEg1N7z +Uvia652hcw= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82FF032348; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 13:15:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 06CE032347; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 13:15:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Linus Torvalds , Paul Tan , Git Mailing List Subject: Re: Small trivial annoyance with the nice new builtin "git am" References: <20160729002902.GD9646@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20160729155012.GA29773@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 10:15:26 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20160729155012.GA29773@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Fri, 29 Jul 2016 11:50:12 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 0C4DC886-55B0-11E6-9DB1-89D312518317-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 05:37:08PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >> > and then to sprinkle calls liberally through builtin-ified programs when >> > they move from one unit of work to the next. >> >> Maybe we can just add it to the end of commit_tree_extended(), and >> just say "the cache is reset between commits". >> >> That way there is no sprinking in random places. > > Hmm, yeah, that might work. As you mentioned, there are cases where we > really do want the timestamps to match (especially between author and > committer). So we would not want this reset to kick in where callers > would not want it. > > So I'm trying to play devil's advocate and think of a case where > somebody would not want the time reset after creating a commit. > > One obvious impact would be reflog entries, since we would reset the > time between the object creation and the ref write (so your reflog entry > would sometimes be a second or more after the commit time it writes). > I'm not sure how much anybody _cares_ about that; they're much less > intimate than author/committer times. As long as it is understood that a commit object is created and then a ref is updated to point at it in this order, I do not think there is any confusion on the party who reads the reflog, I would think.