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

On 3/19/07, Karl Fogel <kfogel@red-bean.com> wrote:
> Malcolm Rowe <malcolm-svn-dev@farside.org.uk> writes:
> > Er, but wouldn't that be the common case - when updating an unmodified
> > file, for example?
>
> Oh, you're right. That *is* the common case. Urgk. Right, now I
> remember that we went through this debate when we originally decided
> to rely on timestamps.
>
> I may be about to redefine the "sacred" in "data is sacred". I mean,
> there are limits! :-)

Ok. Well, I discussed this a bit more on IRC with both markphip,
sussman, maxb and dlr. They all think there are limits too and that
we're stretching our end of the deal by taking the file size into
account too (on trunk, ofcourse).

So, that would mean the issue should probably be closed as MOSTLY
FIXED :-) with a target milestone of 1.5.

Alright?

bye,

Erik.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Mar 19 22:05:11 2007