[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).

"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"

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]