Re: fsfs bug in commit timestamps?

Malcolm Rowe wrote:
>
> Still, changing the svn:date property from 'transaction creation date' to
> 'transaction commit date' doesn't change much, does it, apart from the
> cosmetic issue of preventing time from going backwards for long-running
> transactions? We don't actually _rely_ on svn:date being a monotonically
> increasing sequence anywhere, do we?

I seem to recall that when dates are given as -r params, a binary search
is used to resolve them to rev numbers. So if the revs are out of
order, the wrong rev might be chosen. I can't recall where I read this,
though.

- Marc

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Jan 13 14:28:57 2006