[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: CEDET Merge
From: |
David Engster |
Subject: |
Re: CEDET Merge |
Date: |
Fri, 20 Jan 2017 23:57:19 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) |
Stefan Monnier writes:
>> Yes, 'git am' does that automatically. However, I always followed the
>> general rule that the generated ChangeLogs should have the date when the
>> change enters the Emacs repository, so I'm not sure if I should even
>> retain the original date?
>
> AFAIK, Git records the "author date" separately from the "commit date",
> so The Right Thing To Do is to use the fancy --date argument to provide
> the "author date". The ChangeLog can use the "commit date" if needed.
Yes, git tracks 'Author' and 'Committer', each with their own date. So
the ChangeLog generator script would need to use the name from 'Author'
with the date from 'Committer'. But does it actually do that? And
wouldn't it be pretty confusing to have dates in the ChangeLog that are
years apart from those in the git log?
-David
- Re: CEDET Merge, (continued)
- Re: CEDET Merge, Edward John Steere, 2017/01/17
- Re: CEDET Merge, Stephen Leake, 2017/01/17
- Re: CEDET Merge, David Engster, 2017/01/17
- Re: CEDET Merge, Edward Steere, 2017/01/18
- Re: CEDET Merge, David Engster, 2017/01/18
- Re: CEDET Merge, Edward John Steere, 2017/01/19
- Re: CEDET Merge, David Engster, 2017/01/19
- Re: CEDET Merge, Karl Fogel, 2017/01/19
- Re: CEDET Merge, David Engster, 2017/01/20
- Re: CEDET Merge, Stefan Monnier, 2017/01/20
- Re: CEDET Merge,
David Engster <=
- Re: CEDET Merge, Stefan Monnier, 2017/01/20
- Re: CEDET Merge, Eli Zaretskii, 2017/01/21
- Re: CEDET Merge, Glenn Morris, 2017/01/21
- Re: CEDET Merge, Eli Zaretskii, 2017/01/21
- Re: CEDET Merge, Glenn Morris, 2017/01/21
- Re: CEDET Merge, Eli Zaretskii, 2017/01/21
- Re: CEDET Merge, Paul Eggert, 2017/01/21
- Re: CEDET Merge, Eli Zaretskii, 2017/01/22
- Re: CEDET Merge, David Engster, 2017/01/22
- Re: CEDET Merge, Paul Eggert, 2017/01/22