From: tschwinge <tschwinge@web>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 13:47:35 +0000 (+0000)
Subject: Comment and done.
X-Git-Tag: 3.20100610~32
X-Git-Url: http://git.tremily.us/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=4eb82e7d4161114c6a2194f8f887629ab86162c8;p=ikiwiki.git

Comment and done.
---

diff --git a/doc/bugs/Git:_changed_behavior_w.r.t._timestamps.mdwn b/doc/bugs/Git:_changed_behavior_w.r.t._timestamps.mdwn
index 6abe203a3..4ce7cc3df 100644
--- a/doc/bugs/Git:_changed_behavior_w.r.t._timestamps.mdwn
+++ b/doc/bugs/Git:_changed_behavior_w.r.t._timestamps.mdwn
@@ -187,3 +187,19 @@ intentional?  Otherwise I could supply a patch.
 > merge. As the file is then actually modified to resolve the merge
 > I think it makes sense to count the merge as the last modification in
 > that case. --[[Joey]] 
+
+>> That'd be reasonable, but `git log` will also show merges that are not
+>> conflicting (as in my case).
+
+>> Yet, I'm not totally disagreeing with your choice.  With this `git
+>> log` invocation, you're not able to tell from its output whether a
+>> conflict was resolved or not.
+
+>> Also, it's a bit like the *should we use the **author timestamp** or
+>> **commit timestamp*** discussion.  Your code will always use the
+>> latest timestamp.
+
+>> I guess I'll get my head wrapped around that, and it's fine, so this is
+>> [[done]].
+
+>> --[[tschwinge]]