On Monday, March 5, 2007 at 16:01:45 (+0000) Andy Parkins writes: >On Monday 2007 March 05 14:46, Bill Lear wrote: > >> All very wrong if you ignore what I wrote as part of my original note: >> keep compilation products separated by branch name, not in the same > >I realise why it's causing you troubles. However, I was hoping that that >little example shows why it can never be right to use the timestamp out of >the repository. I don't understand then. If the timestamp is stored per-branch, as it must be, then no effective change takes place whatsoever, and all products are compiled properly, and in their proper place. If master:source.c compiles to .master/source.o and has a timestamp .master/source.c.timestamp, switching to branch1 and back, and restoring the timestamp does not do anything wrong. It just prevents a recompilation. >I'm afraid that the unnecessary recompile is just a by-product of that >organisation. I still say that git is correct to touch the file dates. Well, git is certainly correct for those who want the standard behavior. I don't think the current submodule support will help, but I am keen to see submodules for other reasons. Bill - 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