Robert Collins wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Andrew Schulman
> <email address hidden> wrote:
>>> Note that bug #488724 was fixed to address workflows involving building from sources via a Makefile.
>>> Restoring modification time for files will break these workflows and we certainly don't want to make it
>>> the default mode for bzr.
>> Restoring the original modification times of all files, source and
>> generated, in the working tree would certainly not break make projects.
>> On the contrary, it would cause make to figure out correctly which files
>> were newer than which other ones.
>
> Actually that is only true when you have a central clock; when you
> have multiple clocks - and bzr has one clock per committing machine -
> then its entirely possible - if not likely - that one user will commit
> something which a previous commit claimed a newer date, and then the
> file is seen to go backwards by make; not triggering a build and
> making a terrible mess.
Even then:
# modify foo.c
make
# oops, I don't like that anymore
bzr revert
make #no-op because now foo.c is older than your previous modification
John
=:->
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Robert Collins wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Andrew Schulman
> <email address hidden> wrote:
>>> Note that bug #488724 was fixed to address workflows involving building from sources via a Makefile.
>>> Restoring modification time for files will break these workflows and we certainly don't want to make it
>>> the default mode for bzr.
>> Restoring the original modification times of all files, source and
>> generated, in the working tree would certainly not break make projects.
>> On the contrary, it would cause make to figure out correctly which files
>> were newer than which other ones.
>
> Actually that is only true when you have a central clock; when you
> have multiple clocks - and bzr has one clock per committing machine -
> then its entirely possible - if not likely - that one user will commit
> something which a previous commit claimed a newer date, and then the
> file is seen to go backwards by make; not triggering a build and
> making a terrible mess.
Even then:
# modify foo.c
make
# oops, I don't like that anymore
bzr revert
make #no-op because now foo.c is older than your previous modification
John enigmail. mozdev. org/
=:->
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://
iEYEARECAAYFAkw pAqcACgkQJdeBCY SNAAN7nwCfSU5Yc KVj+/vHLqnwIGRn MAD1 28ZzxH58ouLhWwy ZJ
zUkAn0HetPSRqCW
=W3I0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----