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

Re: RFC: timestamps/sleep

From: Michael Price <mprice_at_atl.lmco.com>
Date: 2003-02-13 18:22:12 CET

Greg Hudson writes:
> 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.

Well, ignoring network filesystems for the moment, its only not a write
if the filesystem in question does asynchronous meta-data
writes. However, if you are writing meta-data asynchronously then you are
almost certainly writing everything asynchronously which no one running
a "real" server (i.e. people with real data they care about) is ever
going to do. So yes, it involves additional writes.

Whether or not that's a big deal is debatable. I don't imagine it would
be a problem but then again, I have a weird imagination.

> 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.

That would be a nice feature.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Feb 13 18:24:36 2003

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