Maybe I am way off, but...
On Tue 2002-11-12 at 13:51:07 -0600, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> email@example.com writes:
> > Hi,
> > I have been using SVN internally for a few months. Here is a recipe for
> > reproducing this error:
> > 1. I already have a WC in WC1 with a file called browse.html with a modified
> > date of 11/8/2002.
> > 2. Check out a fresh working copy in another directory: WC2. This gives
> > all the files a modified date of 11/12/2002.
> > 3. Copy browse.html from WC1 to WC2. The modified date stays the
> > same (11/8/2002).
> Well, heck, that's the bogosity right there. Is that normal on win32?
> When you copy a file, the timestamp doesn't change?? I've never heard
> of such a thing.
> > 4. svn st and svn st -u both return no changes to WC2.
> Right. The first check we make is whether the timestamp has changed.
> If the timestamp hasn't changed,
The timestamp has changed from the point of view of WC2. It may be
true that, for the copied file, the timestamp stayed the same
But before the copy, WC2/browse.html was of 11/12/2002, afterwards it
is 11/8/2002. So no, the timestamp has changed with regard to WC2.
> svn assumes it couldn't *possibly* be modified. (If the timestamp
> has changed, then svn resorts to file-size and possibly
> brute-force.) This is exactly what CVS does as well.
Maybe WC1/browse.html and WC2/browse.html are simply the same
Received on Tue Nov 12 21:52:17 2002
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored