[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: Robert Pluim <rpluim_at_bigfoot.com>
Date: 2003-06-24 19:21:36 CEST

Ben Collins-Sussman writes:
> I think I'm starting to agree with Justin, and Karl is too.
> I mean, at first, CVS's behavior sounds completely absurd. And yes,
> Robert points out that there *are* ways to confuse 'make' by updating
> to-and-fro in time, making files vanish and reappear. But then again,
> that's not a very common behavior either; 'make clean && make' will
> always rescue you from those situations.

If you notice them, yes. OTOH people toing-and-froing had better know
what they're doing (and if they don't, they _definitely_ need to run
make clean).

> 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.
> So for these reasons, I think {Ben, Karl, Justin} are of the opinion
> that if we have a timestamp feature at all, the CVS behavior is
> probably the least evil of all options, and most useful.

+ (we'll probably want some switches for the other 10%, though).


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Jun 24 19:17:23 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.