Re: dates, checksums, and so

 On Sun, May 04, Philip Martin wrote:

> Olaf Hering <olh@suse.de> writes:
>
> > The current behaviour is broken.
>
> No, it's not, the current behaviour is a valid way to behave.
>
> There is no single "correct" behaviour. Propagating the transaction
> timestamp onto checked out files is a valid alternative to the current
> approach, essentially that is the way ClearCase behaves, but keep in
> mind that doing this will interact in "interesting" ways with the
> traditional make approach to building derived objects (e.g. I could do
> an update, have the modified files move backwards in time, and not get
> anything rebuilt).

How can this happen? If you did not touch the file then it will have a
newer timestamp after the 'svn up'. The timestamp of a file that has
local changes must get a new timestamp.

Gruss Olaf

-- 
USB is for mice, FireWire is for men!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org