[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: bitkeeper vs tla
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: bitkeeper vs tla |
Date: |
Fri, 24 Sep 2004 13:22:48 +0900 |
Aaron Bentley <address@hidden> writes:
>> I do sort of wish that arch had a "don't diff unless the timestamp has
>> been altered".
>
> Inode signatures provide that. Files that match their signatures
> (including mtime, inode, size) aren't diffed.
Main problem seems to be that inode-signature support is currently a bit
spotty (e.g., updates don't update them, last time I check, explicit id
checks don't take advantage of them, etc).
-miles
--
"Unless there are slaves to do the ugly, horrible, uninteresting work, culture
and contemplation become almost impossible. Human slavery is wrong, insecure,
and demoralizing. On mechanical slavery, on the slavery of the machine, the
future of the world depends." -Oscar Wilde, "The Soul of Man Under Socialism"
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Link with permissions, (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Link with permissions, tomas, 2004/09/29
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Link with permissions, Robin Farine, 2004/09/29
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Link with permissions, Zenaan Harkness, 2004/09/29
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Link with permissions, tomas, 2004/09/30
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Link with permissions, Robin Farine, 2004/09/30
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Link with permissions, tomas, 2004/09/30
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Link with permissions, Robin Farine, 2004/09/30
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Link with permissions, Zenaan Harkness, 2004/09/30
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Link with permissions, Robin Farine, 2004/09/30
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: bitkeeper vs tla, Aaron Bentley, 2004/09/24
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: bitkeeper vs tla,
Miles Bader <=
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: bitkeeper vs tla, Stefan Monnier, 2004/09/24
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: bitkeeper vs tla, Milan Cvetkovic, 2004/09/24