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

Re: timestamp preservation design (issue 1256)

From: Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman_at_collab.net>
Date: 2003-06-24 17:13:05 CEST

"Sander Striker" <striker@apache.org> writes:

> > From: sussman@collab.net [mailto:sussman@collab.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 4:47 PM
> > Instead, it seems that CVS timestamps work correctly 90% of the time,
> > for the two Really Big use-cases:
> >
> > * developers: 90% of the time they just keep updating to HEAD, and
> > rebuilding. Thus updated files get 'now' time, and 'make' does
> > what they want.
> >
> > * release managers: 90% of the time they do a fresh checkout (or
> > export) of an entire tag. Commit-time timestamps provide them
> > very easy, very useful metadata about their tree.
> Not to be a pain, but isn't checkout just update? Do you want to
> split the functionality again?

If you want to discuss implementation detail:

We have a single wc editor for checkouts and updates. It "knows"
whether it's doing a checkout or update. Your statement that
"checkout == update" is only true from the *RA* layer's point of view,
not libsvn_wc.

So the way we'd implement this is: update_editor.c:add_file() would
install a commit-time timestamp, while open_file() would install a
'now' timestamp. (In checkouts, add_file() is the only function ever
called. For updates, we'd most get open_file() calls, but the
occasional add_file() call would still get a commit-time timestamp,
which is fine.)

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Jun 24 19:15:26 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.