Erik Huelsmann wrote:
> On 2/20/07, Vincent Lefevre <vincent+svn@vinc17.org> wrote:
>> No. "recode" behaves as documented, not "svn". And even if it is
>> documented, it is still a very bad behavior as there are other
>> (say, more valid) ways to get the same mtime while the contents
>> are different. Programs whose behavior is based on timestamps
>> are bad (this is the case for "make", for historical reasons,
>> but Subversion is rather new and shouldn't go this way).
>
> You'd rather wait for Subversion to read all of your entire 500MB
> working copy? You or your users will get insane.
>
> Subversion does and always will use the mtime as a heuristic for
> 'changedness' in its detection logic, until someone comes up with a
> faster way to do the same thing.
I think what people are requesting is a _option_ to force a correct
determination of 'changedness' to cover the situations where the
timestamp can't be trusted. As a historical precedent, you might
consider the 'rsync' program which needs to make approximately the same
determination and thus the same need for an option to do it the fast or
the correct way - and note that it does have exactly such an option.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Feb 20 14:55:28 2007