[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: trivial yet very serious bug, suggestions welcome

From: Greg Hudson <ghudson_at_MIT.EDU>
Date: 2001-10-28 00:47:54 CEST

> If we instead write a timestamp slightly in the future w.r.t. the
> working file -- where "slightly" means "by an amount greater than
> the greatest system granularity you ever heard of" -- then if we
> ever saw a working file whose on-disk timestamp were closer to the
> entry stamp than that amount, we'd know it had been modified. Uh,
> right? :-)

I don't see how this helps. If the file is modified before any system
time passes at all, then we can't distinguish between that and the
file not being modified.

Waiting 1s after a checkout or update is one solution; that's what CVS
seems to do (it checks whether the 1s has already elapsed since the
"last_register_time" and does a sleep(1) if not; that check might be
overkill for us since we can't use global variables). Touching the
checked out files so that their last modified time is 1s in the past
is another solution.

Remember that you have to worry about the same problem after an update
or commit.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:46 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.