Re: bk commits and dates

[Tom Rini <trini@kernel.crashing.org>]

On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 07:11:45AM -0700, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 01:13 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Speaking strictly in terms of implementation, David Woodhouse's 
> > bk-commits mailer scripts could probably easily be tweaked to -not- set 
> > an explicit Date header on the outgoing emails.
> > 
> > It then becomes a matter of deciding whether this is a good idea or not :)
> 
> The original changeset date is also in the body of the mail anyway so it
> wouldn't be lost if we changed this. I have no real preference either
> way. Bear in mind that the Date: header you got would then be the time
> my script ran, not the time it was actually committed. That may differ
> by days, in some cases (thankfully not often).

I've just been using sort by arrival as an imperfect, but still mostly
correct work-around (a few things have shown up after the email with the
tag, but only a few).  I'd argue having the mails have the fuged date is
useful when trying to re-create sub-sets of a given tree.

Note that for the specific problem Ben has (looking at all ChangeSets
from A to B), I've got a kinda slow script that fakes the bk-commits
messages given two repositories, if this sounds of any interest to
anyone.

-- 
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/