[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Bug with revisions?

From: Kasia Trapszo <ktrapszo_at_tickets.com>
Date: 2004-07-15 21:07:55 CEST

I'm not mocking with timestamps.. this was something that was scripted
and while unlikely, I suppose my script was fast enough to write two
version of a file within the same second.. you are looking at the
timestamp up to the second, right?

Btw.. file size was different for all that matters.

k.

On Thu, 2004-07-15 at 14:48, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> When scanning a large tree, 99% of files aren't changed, so it's much
> faster to do the timestamp check first... it allows us to move on to the
> next file ASAP. If we checked filesize first, it would almost always
> be inconclusive ("filesize is the same"), and force us to check the
> timestamp anyway.
>
> (And yes, I believe the timestamp/filesize are being grabbed from the
> working file in a single stat() already. We compare the timestamp to
> the one recorded in the .svn/entries file (which is cached in memory).
> If a filesize check is necessary, we compare the filesize to that of the
> .svn/text-base/ copy, which requires another stat().)
>
> The basic rule-of-trust here is: we assume the user isn't mucking
> around and creating false timestamps. Don't Do That.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Jul 15 21:08:21 2004

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.