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

On 2007-03-24 14:52:32 -0400, Mark Phippard wrote:
> I would also add that if we did add ctime checking, then OK, on some
> OS's in some fairly rare situation we would work better, But, since
> ctime can be updated to the current time by many fairly common
> operations,

Which ones? The main one is chmod, but the average user shouldn't need
it much often in practice. The other ones shouldn't be needed either
by the average user.

> we will actually be making the product much slower, and
> therefore worse, for likely a larger percentage of users.

No, this is wrong if the method is chosen via an option, e.g. most
users could choose the mtime-only solution, while Linux users (in
particular those who use recode and mv in some ways and don't do
operations that change the ctime) could choose the max(mtime,ctime)
solution. So, everyone would be happy.

A solution that does a full file compare could still be useful. For
instance, such a svn status could be run every night and mail warning
messages to the user if something suspicious occurred (including
a hardware-related problem that corrupted a file without changing
the inode data).

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent_at_vinc17.org> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.org/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arenaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org