RE: (bug?) Inconsistent workdir file timestamps after initial clone.

-----Original Message-----
From: Torsten Bögershausen
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 12:19 PM



On 11.12.12 23:30, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

Marc Branchaud [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

My point is that the initial checkout into an empty working

directory should

quoted

quoted

create all files with the same timestamp.

Or, to be a bit more precise, whenever git-checkout *creates* files

in the

quoted

quoted

work dir, *all* the created files should have the *same* timestamp

(i.e. the

quoted

quoted

current time measured at the start of the checkout's execution, not

some

quoted

quoted

bizarro other time specified by some arcane heuristic).

My knee-jerk reaction is that it is insane to do so, but what other
SCM does such a thing? Even "tar xf" wouldn't do that, I think.

ClearCase is doing such a thing.

You need to check out a file to make it writable:
"cleartool checkout main.c"
[hack hack]
If you after some hacking don't like your changes at all,
you run
"cleartool unco main.c" (Undo checkout)
(In git we just use "git checkout")

While in ClearCase the timestamp of your file jumps back to where
it was before the checkout, it gets the current timestamp in git.

I do think that a user preference should decide if git uses metadata timestamps or current timestamp on file operations. I don’t think that the current time is proper as a default operation.

One consequence is that ClearCase users may wish to use "ClearMake"
rather then make.

A better make (which records all timestamps somewhere) would be
helpful.

That is why I always do "make clean" after a rollback. Do you really expect build managers to handle a bi-directional, with regards to time, SDLC? Build managers have worked hard to ensure incremental builds, it is silly to think that they should be re worked.

quoted

quoted

quoted

While not including files that can be rebuilt from the source may

be

quoted

quoted

quoted

the ideal solution, I've seen projects hide rules to rebuild such a
"generated but needs special tools to build" and/or a "generated

but

quoted

quoted

quoted

normal developers do not have any business rebuilding" file (in

your

quoted

quoted

quoted

case, Makefile.in) in their Makefiles from the normal targets (like
"make all") for this exact reason, when they choose to distribute
such files by including in their commits.

I prefer to use the third-party code as-is, without hacking it, to

have

quoted

quoted

smooth upgrades in the future.

Then perhaps take the complaints to that third-party upstream, not
here?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html