Re: --set-mtime-command (was Re: posix atime/ctime changes despite mtime being set)

2023-08-02 Thread Paul Eggert
On 2023-08-02 11:09, Sergey Poznyakoff wrote: Some time ago Bruno Haible suggested a simpler approach, which may be better for GNU tar's users. Here's the idea, which requires two passes over the input files, the first to collect timestamp info: I like the idea, although I doubt that its

Re: --set-mtime-command (was Re: posix atime/ctime changes despite mtime being set)

2023-08-02 Thread Sergey Poznyakoff
Hi Paul, > Thanks for looking into this. My first reaction is that it's a bit > complicated and I would omit --set-mtime-format as being more trouble > than it's worth, The idea was to use strptime, which is faster than parse_datetime. But comparing to the time consumed by git itself (see

Re: --set-mtime-command (was Re: posix atime/ctime changes despite mtime being set)

2023-08-02 Thread Paul Eggert
On 2023-08-01 06:36, Sergey Poznyakoff wrote: Opinions? Thanks for looking into this. My first reaction is that it's a bit complicated and I would omit --set-mtime-format as being more trouble than it's worth, and by default disable warnings about the command issuing an empty log message.

Re: --set-mtime-command (was Re: posix atime/ctime changes despite mtime being set)

2023-08-02 Thread Sergey Poznyakoff
> 2. The command [2] > > implies additional complication, because it is executed in subdirectory. And I have overlooked yet another similar case, here: https://github.com/graygnuorg/tz/blob/e1e0f321af3b5e2cf7134455ca7a4151cbfb5d70/Makefile#L1227 Regards, Sergey