On 2007-03-02 16:18:41 +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Bill Lear wrote:
>
> > On Friday, March 2, 2007 at 10:14:26 (+0100) Karl Hasselström
> > writes:
>
> > > Of course, the proper fix is to use a make-like tool that uses
> > > content hashes as well as timestamps to decide if a file has
> > > been updated ...
> >
> > I like this idea...
>
> I don't like it at all. The proper fix is to _not_ change the
> contents of the current working directory, if you don't want to
> change them to begin with.
Well, in a sense, yes. Not overwriting the current state when all you
want to do is peek at some other state is obviously the better fix of
the two.
However, given that your file timestamps have been bumped (without
file content changes), it's a performance bug in your make tool if
this causes it to needlessly rebuild half the known universe. (Fixing
the bug by using content hashes to detect changes may or may not be a
good trade-off, depending on your workflow.)
--
Karl Hasselström, kha@xxxxxxxxxxx
www.treskal.com/kalle
-
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