Jeff Hostetler <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > I'm not sure now that you mention it. I suppose on modern filesystems > that have mtimes with nanosecond fields we could (are) assuming that > "touch" is actually doing something. On older filesystems (such as > FAT32), you're right it is probably not doing anything at the speed > that the test runs. That one is probably the most relevant nit among the ones I raised. I do not actually mind if we used test-chmtime to force our own timestamp (e.g. "5 seconds before the filesystem time"), and added the helper the "--stdin" option to read paths to work around the "xargs" issue. > TBH I'm not sure that the test needs the "-h". Symlinks are not that > common and it shouldn't affect the timings that much if there are a few. I agree. > I'm not sure what to do about "-0". Not even "--null" is portable. Correct. I do not think it is worth "digging", though. I do not mind "ls-files -z | test-tool chmtime -600 --stdin -z" to lose xargs, but we already depend on GNU time to run t/perf, and it is not too far a stretch to require GNU xargs that knows "-0" or "-d". Thanks.
