Michael Gersten writes [quoting me]:
>
> > And, although it is possible to explicitly reset the timestamp after a
> > modification, so many things depend on timestamps being correct that no
> > one ever does it.)
>
> Gee, ever hear of restoring from a backup?
That's a completely different situation than what I was discussing -- I
was talking about modifying a file and then setting the timestamp back
as though the modification had never occurred; restoring a backup
restores a previous version of a file, including both the contents and
the timestamp. In other words, I was talking about intentionally making
the contents and the timestamp not match, you're talking about making
them match.
> Yes, a checksum can give you duplication. But checksum + size is pretty
> tight. Over slow links, that's very useful.
Depending on the checksum algorithm, just the checksum is pretty tight.
Perhaps I'm spoiled by not having to work across very slow links, but
I'd still rather waste some time in the relatively rare case where the
timestamps have been messed with than take a chance on losing changes
because the modified file just happens to have the same checksum as the
original (since, no matter how unlikely it is to occur in theory,
Murphy's law guarantees that it will happen in practice, at the worst
possible time).
-Larry Jones
I must have been delirious from having so much fun. -- Calvin
