Re: Has Subversion's attitude toward dataloss changed significantly since 0.27?

Erik Huelsmann wrote:
> [re depending on mtime in Subversion]
>
> Yesterday I realised that I had an unfinished change in one of my
> working copies which - when appropriately adjusted - could give us
> what you want quickly: extend the 'changedness'-heuristic with the
> factor 'file size'.
>
> Since this isn't the first time it has come up in the past weeks
> (months), I decided to adapt that unfinished change. I committed it
> this morning as r23767. This means it will be available in 1.5. If you
> want, you can try backporting it to 1.4. We won't, because it changes
> the public interface.

This isn't going to fix the recently posted case of accidentally letting
a recursive tool make the same edit to the working copy and its
supposed-to-be pristine counterpart. You probably can't fix that case
short of a major change to allow the pristine copies to be offset in a
parallel directory structure, but it would be nice to stop and make the
problem very obvious if you notice any mtime's newer on the pristine
copies than they should be - at least if you have anything to indicate
what they should be.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell@gmail.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org