[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 18:52:26 CEST

Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:

> On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 10:46, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> > I think I'm starting to agree with Justin, and Karl is too.
> Ew, no, no, no, no, no. -1 on the CVS behavior.
> It's surprising,

To whom? Our target audience is mainly CVS users, and you've already
heard testimony from two lurkers how surprised they were that 'svn co'
all had uniform 'now' timestamps.

> it has no interesting properties (it doesn't satisfy make, and a
> directory which has been updated even once has a mismash of checkout
> dates and current dates),

For developers, it *does* satisfy make 90% of the time. Most
developers run 'svn up; make'. Is it the various broken-backdating
scenarios that bother you? That 10%?

> and it's ugly.

No argument there. But no uglier than other proposals I've seen. A
lot simpler, really. But this whole topic gives me the willies. :-)

> > * release managers: 90% of the time they do a fresh checkout (or
> > export) of an entire tag.
> For a small tree, maybe. For a big tree, why would I waste my time on a
> fresh checkout when I could do an update or switch?

Maybe I should say: "managers". Managers check out whole tags. They
don't keep working-copies lying around. They check out a tree, build
it, then delete the tree. Same goes for automated build-systems.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Jun 24 20:54:35 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.