Re: [Issue 2746] New - update overwrites w/o warning local modification if local timestamp did not change

On 3/19/07, Karl Fogel <kfogel@red-bean.com> wrote:
> "Erik Huelsmann" <ehuels@gmail.com> writes:
> > Ok. Well, I discussed this a bit more on IRC with both markphip,
> > sussman, maxb and dlr. They all think there are limits too and that
> > we're stretching our end of the deal by taking the file size into
> > account too (on trunk, ofcourse).
>
> I'm not sure what that last sentence means. I don't feel we're
> "stretching" anything, in that working-size is 100% reliable for
> positives, it's just that if you get get a negative (i.e., file size
> hasn't changed), you can't assume that the file hasn't changed.
>
> That's how we use it, right?

No. In the case of update, we *replace* a file for which status
reports not-changed. Effectively, this means that we are not 100%
reliable at knowing whether or not we are destroying unversioned user
data.

bye,

Erik.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Mar 20 00:30:03 2007