On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 3:36 AM, Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> Lorenz wrote on Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 06:01:31 +0000:
>> are you sure about tha being a bug?
>>
>> If for instance in the file the URL keyword is used to initialize a
>> string variable, wouldn't you want the file to be recompiled after the
>> switch?
>
> You are describing a different scenario than the OP.
>
> In the OP's scenario, the file content with keywords expanded was the
> same before and after the switch, yet the mtime differed. I consider
> that a bug.
How can Subversion know that? Reprocessing the file, setting aside the
processed file, then doing a "diff" between them is a lot more pain
than it's worth. And the maintenance of supporting such a feature for
all releases, and backporting it to previous Subversion releases to
support such a contorted workflow as switching upstream midrepos or
branches midstream, is potentially quite fragile.
If you switch the upstream repo for a software source repo, recompile.
It's the best way to make sure you've not left some datestamped file
inconsistencies that could mess with the system.
> If the file content with keywords expanded had been different before the
> switch to after to the switch, then yes, I would have expected the mtime
> to differ, too.
And how, exactly, are you going to verify this? Put in a locally
processed working file to check against? That's begging to leave
debris in the working repository./
> Thanks for contributing this observation: the key question is whether
> the translated content was modified, not whether the repository-normal
> content was.
>
> Cheers
>
> Daniel
Received on 2016-09-28 01:44:19 CEST