Re: Feature request: Keep file dates

On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 04:36:53PM -0500, Scott Palmer wrote:
> >In previous discussions I argued that using modtimes as any indication
> >of version is inherently unreliable and therefore useless.
>
> The reasoning is circular. We don't need to preserve the time in our
> tool, because we can't rely on the time being preserved in some other
> (broken) tool. That's precisely the problem we are trying to FIX.

Scott, we've been through this before. File modification times are
*unreliable* as an indicator of version. In particular, the fact
that file X on system A has a modtime > file X on system B does not
*reliably* indicate that A has a newer version than B. Because they are
not reliable, I don't see the usefulness of maintaining them in VC *for
the purpose of indicating version*. This is not a theoretical problem.
I've been bitten by it, until I learned to be suspicious.

> I really don't understand, why argue against preserving valuable data?

Because I don't think they are particularly valueable. And, in point of
fact, I've not argued against subversion preserving it, only that it's
of low value. Given choice between some working on preserving mod time
vs., say, being able to do merge tracking, I know which one *I'd* vote
for. (And I think you'd agree, based on your later comment.)

> >So preserving modtimes, at least on the import->checkout sequence,
> >would be useful.
>
> Which side are you on? :)

I'm on the side of useful features. I finally hit a situation where
preservation of modtimes would be both useful and valid: protecting me
from the autocrap tools. :-)

Steve

-- 
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask
about Exchange Server next.
                           -- (Stolen from the net)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org