Re:At what time of day do famous programmers work?
by dahart on Thursday July 18, 2019 @01:40PM
(#20472175)
> that timestamp definitely survives `git commit --amend` and other operations like rebase with squash.
You're only talking about the first commit in a squash, and assuming that there aren't multiple squashes, right? There isn't only one timestamp in a squash, so you lose all but one of them.
> I've had commits where the author timestamp was many months older than my last modification to the commit before finally pushing it upstream.
Right, exactly, this illustrates why looking at timestamps isn't a good proxy for work time.
> TFA doesn't discuss which timestamp is being looked at
Here's the relevant portion of the script from the article:
You're only talking about the first commit in a squash, and assuming that there aren't multiple squashes, right? There isn't only one timestamp in a squash, so you lose all but one of them.
> I've had commits where the author timestamp was many months older than my last modification to the commit before finally pushing it upstream.
Right, exactly, this illustrates why looking at timestamps isn't a good proxy for work time.
> TFA doesn't discuss which timestamp is being looked at
Here's the relevant portion of the script from the article: