Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes: > So I think it would be more productive to put a check like this in "git > commit" rather than (or perhaps in addition to) fsck. That prevents > us creating the broken relationship, but it does still mean the user may > have to to go back and tell the original committer that their clock was > broken. > > You could also have the fsck check look not only for out-of-order > commits, but also commits in the future (from the perspective of the > receiver). That would reject such broken commits before they even hit > your repository (though again, it is unclear in such a case if the > commit is broken or the clock of the checker).
I agree 100% with the above two paragraphs. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
