Re: dates, checksums, and so

Olaf Hering wrote:

> 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.
>
>

Not if you update to a previous version, or switch to a branch.

-- 
Brane Čibej   <brane_at_xbc.nu>   http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org