On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 08:47:33PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On Mar 9 19:22, Christian Franke wrote: >> Christopher Faylor wrote: >> >On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 09:43:07AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> >>On Mar 8 21:37, Christian Franke wrote: >> >>>rebase does not explicitly (re)set the timestamp after rebasing. Is >> >>>this by design? >> >>> >> >>Well, let me put it like this. Rebase just does its job. It doesn't >> >>actually care for the file timestamp, only for the file header >> >>timestamps. This is not by design, it's just as it is. So the next >> >>question is obvious. Do you think it should change the timestamp or >> >>not? Why? A patch is simple and I have it actually already waiting in >> >>the scenery. >> >> Both have it its pros and cons, so it depends on user's preferences: >> Preserve st_mtime: >> + Incremental Backups are not polluted with unnecessary DLL copies >> after rebaseall is run. >> >> Update st_mtime: >> + Incremental Backups provide an accurate copy (including >> /etc/rebase.db.i386 which matches DLL states) >> >> >> >I don't think the default should change but maybe an option could be >> >added for people who want to see updated times. >> >> Agree. > >I'm not so sure this option would make a lot of sense. An option not >used by rebaseall by default won't be used anyway. We should decide >which behaviour makes more sense and then just do it.
Why couldn't it be an option for rebaseall? Frankly, I don't really want to see the modification time of all of my dlls change when I run rebaseall. I'd rather have the date match what's in the package. But, I can see why somebody might not want that behavior. cgf -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
