John Caruso wrote:

> No, you're still not understanding how the patch works.

Ok, I'll admit that I misread it at first, but you're also not understanding why I'm saying why it will still break.

I'm surprised you're taking such an all-or-nothing view now,

I don't think I'm taking an all-or-nothing view at all, I just think your solution isn't the right one.

given that you started out being open to discussion. This patch certainly does solve the problem generally--in all but what I'd say are pathological cases, and certainly in any standard usage (like the various examples I've posted). And it does it by directly addressing the fastpath algorithm's reliance on mtime, which has only one-second granularity.

"pathological cases" are exactly the problem. I'm only speaking for myself of course, but I suspect that at least a few others would agree that your case is pathological itself, and not at all standard usage.

I can very easily come up with a scenario that breaks your patched fastpath just as easily as the original, to which you can rightly say, "but why would you do it that way?". And you would be right.

That is the exact same thing that has been said repeatedly on this thread to you: why are you doing it that way? You probably have valid reasons and in any case I'm in no position to question your reasons. That doesn't make your case any less pathological than some other one.


AOLserver -

To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
with the
body of "SIGNOFF AOLSERVER" in the email message. You can leave the Subject: 
field of your email blank.

Reply via email to