Anders J. Munch wrote:
> sussman_at_gmail.com wrote:
>> This feature has been discussed over and over through the years; if
>> you search the dev@ archives, you can read the debates. The opinion
>> of the dev team is that this is not a useful feature in general;
>> while it might help a very small minority of users that wish to track
>> original timestamps, [...]
>
> I sincerely doubt it's any sort of minority, let alone a very small one.
>
>> * Version control is typically used for code. Having timestamps
>> touched by 'svn update' solves the 90% use-case of causing programs
>> like 'make' to rebuild exactly what has changed. This is a useful and
>> important default behavior.
>
> The "make argument" is flawed. Read my 2008-06-10 posting
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.subversion.user/77803
Sorry, this makes no sense. The whole idea of the last modified
timestamp is that it represents the time when this file was
last modified.
A lot of software is based on that convention, not only make.
Therefore, also svn should (at least in its default configuration)
follow that convention and touch the timestamp if it modifies
a file for example by svn update.
This is the only correct behavior (not disputing that other behaviors
may be useful as workaround in untypical situations).
Btw, for build systems of larger software, checksums are no option
because they are far too slow. Thats the reason why for example
also scons can use timestamps.
Folker
>
> regards, Anders
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-07-12 11:31:48 CEST