On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 04:46:43PM -0500, Francis Giraldeau wrote: > Le 2013-12-06 01:48, Kari Pahula a écrit : > > None of that code has yet made its way to mandb. > > It's a good start, let's try make it ready.
For what it's worth, I'm actually slightly less interested in the patch cleanup. What I'm more interested in, and the reason I hadn't just gone ahead and dealt with Kari's patch directly (sorry for not explaining this!) is a more detailed analysis of Kari's comment in the bug report: "there's something off with the code and it gives false positives on differing mtimes". What exactly is going on here? I would really be more comfortable continuing to use mtimes if possible; it is the more appropriate stat field to use, as it describes changes to the file's contents rather than its metadata. Using ctimes seems to me to be a mistake. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [[email protected]] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
