[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: Max Bowsher <maxb_at_ukf.net>
Date: 2003-06-24 22:45:38 CEST

Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> 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.
> 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.

Here is a way to improve on CVS behaviour with respect to generated files in
the repository:
During an update, set all timestamps to the time the update began (i.e.,
approximately 'now', and identical for each file touched by a single
update). The advantage this gives is: if a source and generated file are
both updated, the generated file will be considered up-to-date by make,
regardless of the order in which the individual files are updated.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Jun 24 22:52:15 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.