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

Re: dates, checksums, and so

From: Olaf Hering <olh_at_suse.de>
Date: 2003-05-05 06:58:19 CEST

 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
Received on Mon May 5 06:59:04 2003

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.