... Bill Lear wrote: >> >> Not because git wrote the file, but because ... and writes the file (and timestamps it) "smartly". If >> someone writes ... There's no way that git can know whether you did ... it gets on checkout M=timestamp(sourcefile.c). I compile the ...

git - Bill Lear - Mar 5 2007 - 18:25

... : >... >Now take the suggestion that timestamps from the repository version should be > ... sourcefile.o (setting its timestamp to $now) > git checkout branch2 > # sourcefile.c changes, so sets the timestamp to $timestamp2 > # make wouldn't rebuild ...

git - Bill Lear - Mar 5 2007 - 10:46

... master:sourcefile.c. No stored timestamp are on > >> this branch, so ... it gets on checkout > >> M=timestamp(sourcefile.c). I compile the ... move back to master branch. Git stores M as branchX:sourcefile ... list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a ...

git - Johannes Schindelin - Mar 5 2007 - 19:32

... git checkout origin/ and there you are. The old timestamps are ... useful at times. You just do git show otherbranch:filename in one xterm ... alternatives than playing games with file timestamps. Linus - To unsubscribe from this ...

git - Linus Torvalds - Mar 1 2007 - 18:25

... 2007, Bill Lear wrote: > >> > >> Not because git wrote the file, but because git notices ... just creates the timestamp at the time of > >> the checkout. If no write ... 't you realize that restoring the timestamp is *WRONG*? > > Maybe, maybe not. Each ...

git - Johannes Schindelin - Mar 5 2007 - 18:56

... flag > that told git to restore the timestamps across branch checkouts in > order ... branch are changed, tuck away the timestamps for > those, and switch to the ... the changed files > were restored, the timestamps would be reset. For instance, timestamp ...

git - Alex Riesen - Mar 1 2007 - 17:48

... master:sourcefile.c. No stored timestamp are on >> this branch, so ... it gets on checkout >> M=timestamp(sourcefile.c). I compile the ... do this with timestamps, it's just that I'm not ... much less invasive alternatives, using git (right now) and still, despite ...

git - Bill Lear - Mar 5 2007 - 19:20

... were complaining about. Not because git wrote the file, but because ... and writes the file (and timestamps it) "smartly". If someone writes ... creates the timestamp at the time of the checkout. If no ... list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a ...

git - Bill Lear - Mar 5 2007 - 17:42

... master:sourcefile.c. No stored timestamp are on > this branch, so ... it gets on checkout > M=timestamp(sourcefile.c). I compile the ... c Git > checks out the file, and stamps it with N ... arguably integrate ccache with more git integration, and let ccache just ...

git - Linus Torvalds - Mar 5 2007 - 18:37

... desirable to have a config flag that told git to restore the timestamps across branch checkouts in order ... are changed, tuck away the timestamps for those, and switch to the ... changed files were restored, the timestamps would be reset. One thing ...

git - Bill Lear - Mar 1 2007 - 17:36

... 2007, Bill Lear wrote: > > Not because git wrote the file, but because git ... > changes, and writes the file (and timestamps it) "smartly". If > someone writes into the ... of the file just creates the timestamp at the time of > the checkout. If no write ...

git - Linus Torvalds - Mar 5 2007 - 17:50

... be right to use the timestamp out of >the repository. I don't understand then. If the timestamp is stored per-branch, as ... and back, and restoring the timestamp does not do anything wrong. ... >organisation. I still say that git is correct to touch the ...

git - Bill Lear - Mar 5 2007 - 12:28

... than xyz.o >00:12 you checkout your side branch, xyz.c is ... and xyz.c has the same timestamp as >before, then it _still_ is ... You are happy, and thank the git community for all of their heroic ... list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a ...

git - Bill Lear - Mar 5 2007 - 19:38

... never be right to use the timestamp out of the repository. > place. This ... is implemented? http://lists.zerezo.com/git/msg334639.html I doubt it though ... as you would probably want automatic checkout in your situation. Andy -- Dr Andy ...

git - Andy Parkins - Mar 5 2007 - 12:01

... breaking clear idioms also. >> the timestamp for that file on that ... the >> file would get whatever timestamp it got when it was ... >ways how to invalidate the timestamp), and serves only an obscure ... list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a ...

git - Bill Lear - Mar 5 2007 - 19:27

... , they change, and so would the timestamp. So what? Think about it. Why would the timestamp change? Because Git wrote the file? But that was exactly the behaviour you ... this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to ...

git - Johannes Schindelin - Mar 5 2007 - 16:44

... some Makefile targets depend on the timestamp of > this, too). > > And to ... all sounds a lot like git-clone's "alternate" code. Does a ... . I have not found a git workflow that makes me entirely ... list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a ...

git - Michael Poole - Mar 5 2007 - 20:06

... > >> This all sounds a lot like git-clone's "alternate" code. >> ... >> My own work habits are ... .gitlink idea (search for '[RFC] Light-weight checkouts via ".gitlink"') -- Jakub Narebski Warsaw, Poland ShadeHawk on #git - To unsubscribe ...

git - Jakub Narebski - Mar 5 2007 - 21:21

Hi, On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Bill Lear wrote: > Not because git wrote the file, but because git notices that content > changes, and writes the file (and timestamps it) "smartly". You know why you put that in quotes? I ...

git - Johannes Schindelin - Mar 5 2007 - 18:02

... : >On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Bill Lear wrote: >> Not because git wrote the file, but because git notices that content >> changes, and writes the file (and timestamps it) "smartly". > >You know why you put that in quotes? I ...

git - Bill Lear - Mar 5 2007 - 18:29