Stefan Sperling on Fri, Aug 16 2024:
> Preserving the author timestamp is an important detail when people
> use a mix of Got and Git tooling within the same project, allowing
> Git users to always see the behaviour they would except from commits
> created with Got.

Agreed.

> However, [in got log] we'd end up showing two timestamps not only in a
> few exceptional cases. They would always be crowding the display too
> much for my taste.

I think that's actually very valid.

> Even Git doesn't seem to be displaying the author date by default.
> In my testing I had to run git log --pretty=fuller to see them.

Git does display the author date by default. It's the committer date
that it does not. ;)

At least according to my testing and its man page for --pretty=medium:

             commit <hash>
             Author: <author>
             Date:   <author-date>

> rebase -l / histedit -l. These features were designed for this exact
> use case, where revisiting older states of branches becomes necessary.

FWIW, I was considering these backups transient, assuming they would
sooner or later vanish through -X. Anyway, I guess this is a tangent.

> Or these tests could use some suitable invocation of 'git log' to
> ensure that Got preserves the timestamp as intended.

I'm guessing you'd rather not see a new option to 'got log' that shows
the author time?

Are you happy with '@' in tog toggling to both author name and date?

> Would you be willing to work on those suggested changes yourself?

I would. I'll try to get an updated patch prepared over the weekend. :)

-p