Re: [Issue 2746] New - update overwrites w/o warning local modification if local timestamp did not change

On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 09:20:08AM -0700, Karl Fogel wrote:
> > My preference would be to switch changed-ness checking of the working
> > file to a byte-by-byte compare (which is probably a one-liner).
> >
> > Comments?
>
> I agree, given that the byte-by-byte check would only happen if the
> sizes are the same. Data is sacred.
>

Er, but wouldn't that be the common case - when updating an unmodified
file, for example?

Currently (I'm guessing) we read the text-base and apply the delta to
produce a new text-base, then copy it over the existing wc file and
rename it over the text-base. Can we instead read the (believed
unmodified) wc file and apply the delta to that? We can already check
the MD5 of a file while we're reading it, so that wouldn't increase the
amount of data we need to read.

(And in the case where we believe the file is modified, we'd continue to
use the pristine text-base).

Oh, wait, that won't work for translated files... and I'm not sure
whether we even hold an MD5 of the translated version of the file, so I
don't know how we'd solve this problem for those files anyway.

Regards,
Malcolm