Re: RFC: timestamps/sleep

(Didn't notice this message was in the thread before I sent my last
response.)

On Thu, 2003-02-13 at 07:39, Philip Martin wrote:
> I think setting the timestamps will involve additional writes to the
> disk.

You're right, though it depends on the filesystem.

> An alternative idea to reduce the sleep: track the most recent
> timestamp.

This is probably not much more complicated (it requires libsvn_wc to
update a timestamp variable each time it stores one in the entries file,
as opposed to my and Ben's idea where it would have to see a timestamp
variable each time) and will probably save the full second in most
cases.

So, if we do anything, this is probably the direction to go.

> Finally, if we do implement setting the timestamp then perhaps we
> should consider a mode that sets the timestamp to the time of the
> commit rather than the start of an operation?

This is a totally different feature; the fact that both would be using
utimes() doesn't make them terribly related. And I would say the time
of the last commit isn't the right answer; the right answer is a
timestamp property set on the file (which we don't current set). That
way you could a import a collection of files with this property set on
each file, and a checkout would have the same timestamps--a property
many build systems want to ensure.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Feb 13 18:06:55 2003