On Monday, March 5, 2007 at 16:01:45 (+0000) Andy Parkins writes:
quoted text
>On Monday 2007 March 05 14:46, Bill Lear wrote:
>
>> All very wrong if you ignore what I wrote as part of my original note:
>> keep compilation products separated by branch name, not in the same
>
>I realise why it's causing you troubles.  However, I was hoping that that 
>little example shows why it can never be right to use the timestamp out of 
>the repository.

I don't understand then.  If the timestamp is stored per-branch, as it
must be, then no effective change takes place whatsoever, and all
products are compiled properly, and in their proper place.

If master:source.c compiles to .master/source.o and has a timestamp
.master/source.c.timestamp, switching to branch1 and back, and
restoring the timestamp does not do anything wrong.  It just prevents
a recompilation.

quoted text
>I'm afraid that the unnecessary recompile is just a by-product of that 
>organisation.  I still say that git is correct to touch the file dates.

Well, git is certainly correct for those who want the standard behavior.

I don't think the current submodule support will help, but I am keen
to see submodules for other reasons.


Bill
-
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