On Sun, 26 Apr 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Was ignoring st_dev checking primarily for a work tree over NFS? Yes, but I think there were other issues too (like git repositories on removable media). The inode number really has similar concerns - different operating systems will use different inode numbers for both NFS and for things like FAT. It's not nearly as noticeable, because people don't tend to switch OS's as much as they might switch between two machines. > I like the end result. > > But I am not sure about dropping the nanosecond resolution timestamps. > The area was extended recently in preparation for ext4; we can take > advantage of it to reduce the chance the racy-git avoidance codepath > triggers if we keep it. > > fba2f38 (make USE_NSEC work as expected, 2009-02-19) > > c06ff49 (Record ns-timestamps if possible, but do not use it without > USE_NSEC, 2009-03-04) Hey, we can leave the NSEC support in. Admittedly removing that was about half the patch, but even with it left in, it would be a cleanup. Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html