[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 19:54:56 CEST

Philip Martin <philip@codematters.co.uk> writes:

> > If you're going to do something truly awful in order to make something
> > else work, it should be a 100% solution, not a 90% solution.
> I tend to agree with Greg here, I don't really like the CVS behaviour
> (but then I'm not a CVS user). If we are going to go to all the
> trouble of storing and retrieving commit times it seems odd to do it
> only for CVS compatibility.

None of my proposals have been about storing any new information. I
don't want to implement any new systems to save/restore timestamps.

We already have commit-times coming back from the server, and embedded
in entries files. My proposals have simply been a matter of "hey, why
not use them once in a while, for something other than keyword
expansion." Very, very simple.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Jun 24 21:57:09 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.