Concerning Re: Poor performance in windows. Sw
Jeff Smith wrote on 13 Feb 2007, 13:53, at least in part:
> On Tuesday 13 February 2007 02:31, Jan Hendrik wrote:
> > Well, is it really to be considered a user error? There are more
> > than one apps out there that deliberately or by user's choice do not
> > touch the timestamp on search&replace operations for one or other
> > reason.
>
> Shoot... are we trying to make svn perform faster, or grind the
> process to a halt??
>
> Can you imagine the increased _drag___ if svn were supposed to assume
> that every timestamp were meaningless, and have to compare entire
> contents instead? That would be horrendous!
Well, make it a case of --force switch as I said downwards of that
or probably a second posting!
> I say if you haven't got
> valid timestamps (especially for large number of files), you haven't
> got version control.
Dunno what timestamps (any unchanged timestamp still is a valid
timestamp if the filesystem is not broken) have to do with version
control. I would rather having SVN optionally honoring last modified
as timestamp for checkouts/updates instead of
commit/checkout/update time anyway. Timestamps may not
matter in C programming, with FTP synching they matter.
JH
---------------------------------------
Freedom quote:
Freedom is the power to live as you will.
Who then lives as he wills?
-- Marcus Tullius Cicero
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Feb 14 12:18:28 2007