On Sun, Mar 04, 2001 at 11:54:11AM +0100, Emiliano wrote:
> Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
>
> > > OK, I thought about forcing changes and the basic --force idea is
> > > flawed, since it would screw up all the date stamps at once. But what
> > > about an easy way (for humans) to mark a record as updated? I know you
> > > could change the timestamp, but figuring that out is not easy.
> >
> > Then it should be documented.
>
> Even if it were documented, caclculating the proper timestamp is
> inconvenient. That's what I meant with 'figuring out is not easy'.
As I've wrote in http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=midgard-dev&m=97843256905575&w=2
calculation is very easy and even can be done by this call to standard
'date' utility (not mentioned in the referenced document though):
date '+%Y%m%d%k%M%S'
Just insert returned string into 'changed' field of edited resource.
--
Sincerely yours, Alexander Bokovoy
The Midgard Project | www.midgard-project.org | Aurora R&D team
Minsk Linux Users Group | www.minsk-lug.net | www.aurora-linux.com
ALT Linux Team | www.alt-linux.org | Architecte Open Source
-- Flee at once, all is discovered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
