On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 10:51:15AM -0600, Karl Fogel wrote:
> Philip Martin <philip@codematters.co.uk> writes:
> > I think setting the timestamps will involve additional writes to the
> > disk. If so these are likely to be undesirable as the additional IO
> > will slow down the operation. While this will be offset by avoiding
> > the sleep, it will make the operation more expensive to the system as
> > a whole. It will penalise you if you are trying to do anything else
> > on the disk while running the Subversion command, it will penalise
> > multiuser systems, network filesystems, etc. In general it would be
> > "selfish" of Subversion to operate this way if it could avoid it.
>
> Yes, very! If Subversion changes timestamps, many editors will notice
> and tell you that the file has changed on disk. Emacs will ask you if
> you want to reload... Very annoying, and likely to cause people to
> accidentally lose their buffer-local changes.
>
I think the timestamps would be changed on the files in .svn/tmp, which
would then be moved into place with the correct timestamps. This would
only happen for files that were actually merged.
--ben
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Feb 13 21:16:57 2003