Hi Karsten, On 2015-09-29 12:23, Karsten Blees wrote: > Am 28.09.2015 um 14:52 schrieb Johannes Schindelin: >> Otherwise there would be that little loop-hole where (nsec % 1000) == 0 *by chance* and we assume the timestamps to be identical even if they are not. > > Yeah, but in this case the file would be racy, as racy-checks use > the same comparison now. True. > IMO change detection is so fundamental that it should Just Work, > without having a plethora of config options that we need to explain > to end users. > > If that means that once in a million cases we need an extra content > check to revalidate such falsely racy entries, that's fine with me. You have a good point there. I retract my objections. Thanks, Dscho -- 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