3 ms·

This isn't entirely correct. Git commits have two timestamps: the author timestamp and the commit timestamp. Git only shows the author timestamp by default, and

This isn't entirely correct. Git commits have two timestamps: the author timestamp and the commit timestamp. Git only shows the author timestamp by default, and that timestamp definitely survives `git commit --amend` and other operations like rebase with squash. I've had commits where the author timestamp was many months older than my last modification to the commit before finally pushing it upstream. Unfortunately, TFA doesn't discuss which timestamp is being looked at, though that leads me to suspect that it's looking at the author timestamp because that's the default.

dahart 7y ago
> 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: git log --author="Linus Torvalds" --date=iso