On 12-12-11 05:30 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Marc Branchaud <marcn...@xiplink.com> writes:
>> My point is that the initial checkout into an empty working directory should
>> create all files with the same timestamp.
>> Or, to be a bit more precise, whenever git-checkout *creates* files in the
>> work dir, *all* the created files should have the *same* timestamp (i.e. the
>> current time measured at the start of the checkout's execution, not some
>> bizarro other time specified by some arcane heuristic).
> My knee-jerk reaction is that it is insane to do so, but what other
> SCM does such a thing?

I'm lucky enough to just care about git these days.

> Even "tar xf" wouldn't do that, I think.

"tar xf" uses the timestamps that are stored in the tar file.  I see this as
an argument against git's exact-current-time-per-file approach: even the tar
guys understand that it's insane.

>>> While not including files that can be rebuilt from the source may be
>>> the ideal solution, I've seen projects hide rules to rebuild such a
>>> "generated but needs special tools to build" and/or a "generated but
>>> normal developers do not have any business rebuilding" file (in your
>>> case, Makefile.in) in their Makefiles from the normal targets (like
>>> "make all") for this exact reason, when they choose to distribute
>>> such files by including in their commits.
>> I prefer to use the third-party code as-is, without hacking it, to have
>> smooth upgrades in the future.
> Then perhaps take the complaints to that third-party upstream, not
> here?

Well, I thought that while I wait for some dozen-or-so projects to accept
changes to their builds, it might be nice for git to solve this problem for
me.  It is, after all, an effect of the way git operates.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to