On Monday, March 5, 2007 at 20:16:35 (+0100) Johannes Schindelin writes: >Hi, > >On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Bill Lear wrote: > >> On Monday, March 5, 2007 at 12:32:07 (+0100) Johannes Schindelin writes: >> >> >On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Karl Hasselström wrote: >> > >> >> On 2007-03-02 20:21:17 +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Karl Hasselström wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > However, given that your file timestamps have been bumped (without >> >> > > file content changes), >> >> > >> >> > There were changes. Only that they have been taken back, but that is >> >> > _another_ change. >> >> >> >> Since the content is exactly the same as before, I'd be of the strong >> >> opinion that nothing has changed as far as the make system should be >> >> concerned. >> > >> >You are missing an important point here: there _was_ a change. >> >> Physically, yes, the bits were changed, > >Yeah, I know people, who would like to change laws of physics, too. > >> but logically nothing has changed, at least in the scenario I outlined. > >But it could! Even in the scenario you outlined. If somebody (might be >even you yourself) pushes into your repo, under the name of the branch to >which you switch back to right after that. Bingo. Files changed. Yes, they change, and so would the timestamp. So what? >See? That is what happens if you don't fix things the right way, you keep >getting problems. Yes, you can solve them in another tacky way, but you'll >only get different problems, then. I never said git was "broken". I describe a usage scenario I would personally find useful. 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