Op wo 6 dec 2023 18:22 schreef Richard Eckart de Castilho <r...@apache.org>:
> > We can switch from LastModifiedResourceVersion to something else in our > > applications to work around this issue, but maybe we should consider > > tracking down this issue and release a 9.16.1. I'd expect we are not the > > only ones using LastModifiedResourceVersion. > > I wonder how this is supposed to work at all... > > AFAIK git does not track the last modification date - so I guess that date > would reflect whatever the modification date is on the machine of the > developer that does the release...? > I'm not sure either, but using the last modification date of a local checkout would be better than using no timestamp at all. For this part of the code, it's not a big problem if the modification date is set to a later date than what it actually is. It might cause some cached files to be sent anyway when in fact the file did not change. The current situation causes files to not be sent when they really should be. Actually it would be fine if the modification date was set to the current timestamp during the release. Best regards, Emond >
