Re: commit 9d0f14

[Tatsuro M. <tma...@ya...>]

----- Original Message -----

> From: sfeam 
> To: gnuplot-beta
> Cc: Tatsuro MATSUOKA 
> Date: 2018/3/22, Thu 11:59
> Subject: Re: commit 9d0f14
> 
> On Wednesday, 21 March 2018 19:39:55 sfeam via gnuplot-beta wrote:
>>  On Thursday, 22 March 2018 10:34:14 Tatsuro MATSUOKA wrote:
>>  >  [9d0f14] (HEAD, master) by Ethan A Merritt Ethan A Merritt
>>  > 
>>  > another try at timestamp.h, this time using build date
>>  > 
>>  > The Makefile rule for timestamp.h was broken when we switched from
>>  > cvs to git, since it relied on ChangeLog always being current.
>>  > Proposed replacement rules have so far failed to work for out-of-tree
>>  > builds or builds from a snapshot rather than a full git clone.
>>  > This attempt simply uses the current build date, which admittedly may
>>  > not be newer than the last-modified date but at least has the virtue
>>  > of not depending on git.
>>  > 
>>  > 
>>  > However, git date reflects last commit date and not newer than build 
> date.
>>  > Build date is not later than the last commit date.
>>  > It is usually newer than the last commit date.
>> 
>>  Yes.  The text of the commit message was wrong.
>>  Sorry.
>> 
>>  I wish there was a way to edit commit messages afterwards.
>>  That is the thing I dislike the about about git so far.
> 
>        s/dislike the about about/dislike the most about/
> 
>>  You cannot go back and fix typos or errors in the commit
>>  messages.
> 
>     like that :-)
> 
> 
>>      Ethan
>> 
>>  > 
>>  > Tatsuro


The terms "last modified" indicate source modification but not build timing.
I feel that the term "last modified" is not point to the state after commit 9d0f14.

The term should also changed to be "build date and time".

Tatsuro