On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 02:13:12PM -0600, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: > On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Pedro Lino <pedl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I know, I did it... but you don't have a 'push time' >> :) Thank you, then :) >> Why do I need to know the push time? Any commits that were pushed into >> Central repository before time X are included in the source that is >> pulled after time X... I think? > sure. but then how do you known 'when' a given fix was pushed ? (and > bear in mind timezone :-)) Oh come on, timezones is a solved problem: use UTC times. As I was arguing on the other thread, commit time (as opposed to author time) serves the purposes discussed rather well, no need to go looking for push or pull time: because we usually keep a linear history, it gives us a notion of "before" and "after". And even in the cases we do a merge, the nodes in the graph that matter also have a linear history: The nodes that matter are those that ever were the HEAD of the branch. Even in case of a merge at M: A --- B ---- C ---- M --- D --- E \ / T---F --- G --- H The nodes T F G H were never the HEAD of the branch (e.g. master or libreoffice-3-5), so never built by the (same) tinderbox, and M has a commit time bigger than A, B, C and smaller than D, E. Remember that the commit time is updated when one rebases or uses "git am"; author time is not. So, really, rather than "time at which the tinderbox pulled", I argue that "recorded commit time of the HEAD node" is a better identifier to put in tarball names, about boxes, etc. It is really (within a branch) a proper global version number, à la SVN revision. -- Lionel _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
