[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: Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_newton.ch.collab.net>
Date: 2001-10-30 00:46:09 CET

"Paul Smith" <pausmith@nortelnetworks.com> writes:
> Be careful with timestamps.
> Remember that they can behave differently if your repository is on an
> NFS filesystem, for example, if the server's clock is not identical to
> your local clock (which happens quite often).
> If you update a file "normally" (by modifying it or creating it or
> whatever), then it's the server's responsibility to set the timestamp so
> it will be in relation to the server's clock. But, if you explicitly
> set the time on the file then it will obviously be in relation to your
> local clock.
> I'm not sure that there's any issue here for your situation, but I think
> it's a good idea to keep this in mind; for example, if you let the
> server set some mod times, but you hard-set them yourself on other
> files, then even if you wait a second they could be the same value!
> Better to come up with a scheme which either always lets the server
> update (I think this is what the sleep() method does; you wait at least
> one second to get some differentiation and you don't hand-set any
> timestamps) or in which you always set the time (I think this would be
> painful).
> I didn't completely grok the issue you're discussing so if this is
> stupid just ignore me--I've had more than my share of timestamp problems
> working with GNU make so I'm sensitive to these things :).

This is only client-side -- server times don't affect this issue.


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.