Julian Foad wrote:
>> Minor aesthetic change, but one I do agree. One concern I also
>> had was "am I complicating matters more by introducing so many
>> different mtimes?"
> I'm not 100% clear what those properties are for, but I'm pretty sure
> you are complicating matters too much by suggesting them.
Judging from the response to my rfc, I probably made
a mistake in posting it without considerable forethought.
At that point in time, I thought that it would be more
'informative' were we to include the different properties
to allow users to look up when the file/directory was
added (imported, committed, merged, etc). Given your
comment, I suppose the required work (as implied by the
RFC) is probably far less effective/efficient in
dev time usage.
> I think Philip's example was assuming that 'foo' was a versioned file
> that was checked out, and this step is modifying its mtime but not its
> content, and wondering what status that would show and what would happen
> at commit time.
My bad. I had misunderstood his post.
Received on 2010-01-06 09:44:09 CET