On 8/29/06, Steve Fairhead <steve@fivetrees.com> wrote:
> Greg Thomas said:
>
> >>
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 14:36:24 +0100, "Andrew Webb"
> <andrew.microi@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >As Steve Fairhead says in a recent, related thread: "one could argue
> >just as hard for timestamps to be preserved *because* of makefiles".
>
> You could try, but I don't think you would be very successful. If you
> preserve modification times, you fall in to the following trap:
>
> 1-Aug: Alice checks out file foo.c, modification date 1-Aug.
> 2-Aug: Bob modifies, commits foo.c
> 3-Aug: Alice does a make. foo.c is compiled,
> creating foo.o timestamped 3-aug.
> 4-Aug: Alice does a 'svn update'. foo.c arrives timestamped 2-Aug
> Alice does a make. foo.c is not compiled, despite being
> changed since the last compilation, as foo.c is timestamped
> 2-Aug (when Bob made the change), which is before foo.o was
> created (3-Aug).
> <<
>
> This is fairly bogus. So Alice has edited a file, thrown it away, and
> reverted to an earlier version. With or without a VCS, this is (as I said
> earlier in another post) the sort of situation that breaks makefiles anyway.
> I'd do a make clean.
Well, it may break other VCS with makefiles, but this scenario works
under Subversion, so, although make clean is a very good idea
(always), there is not stricktly a need to with svn...
bye,
Erik.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Aug 29 19:48:32 2006