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

Re: svn status: does not notice changed file if timestamp of "new" file is older

From: <subversion_at_lclark.net>
Date: 2002-11-12 21:54:53 CET

HMMM, I have seen some weird behavior here, but I don't have time to explore
all the variations til later today. I will post more info then.


>-- Original Message --
>To: subversion@lclark.net
>Cc: dev@subversion.tigris.org
>From: Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman@collab.net>
>Date: 12 Nov 2002 14:20:55 -0600
>Subject: Re: svn status: does not notice changed file if timestamp of
>file is older
>subversion@lclark.net writes:
>> As I understand it, Windows keeps three "dates" per file:
>> Created Date, Modified Date, Accessed Date. I am a little confused by
>> explanation since none of those dates should be equal to their counterpart
>> dates in the textbase version.
>Subversion never looks at the textbase timestamp. It looks at the
>timestamp recorded in the entries file, and compares it to the
>timestamp on the working file.
>> (I checked to make sure that this is the case). Also, I went back
>> to make sure that the WC version of the file file was substantively
>> different than the textbase version just to make sure I wasn't doing
>> anything dumb.
>Now you've managed to confuse me as well.
>Are you saying that you've managed to create this scenario?
> 1. a working file and its text-base file have different contents
> 2. the working file has the exact same timestamp as is recorded in
> the entries file.
>If so, how did this scenario happen?
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Nov 12 21:51:19 2002

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