X-Git-Url: http://git.vanrenterghem.biz/git.ikiwiki.info.git/blobdiff_plain/c911b4b998992a69b5eea167658fb00c52a064a1..f77784affdc9f05be06eb0be3c26bb81ef41ec8f:/doc/bugs/Git:_changed_behavior_w.r.t._timestamps.mdwn

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..164e62075 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 +187,28 @@ 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).
+
+>>> Actually when displaying a merge, `git log --stat` only lists files that
+>>> were actually modified in a new way as part of the merge resolution.
+>>> Ie, if the merge resolution only joins together some of the parent
+>>> hunks, the file is not listed as having been modified.
+>>>
+>>> So, no, ikiwiki's use of git log will not show files modified in
+>>> non-conflicting merges.
+>>> --[[Joey]]
+
+>> 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]]