[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Using hash instead of timestamps to check for changes.

From: Tim Murphy
Subject: Re: Using hash instead of timestamps to check for changes.
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2015 22:44:20 +0100

On 11 April 2015 at 16:38, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <address@hidden> wrote:
On 07.04.2015 00:17, Eric Melski wrote:

> ClearCase
> does this in various configurations, and Perforce will if your client
> spec has "modtime" set.  I'm sure other SCM systems can be setup this
> way too.

The correct solution is to configure the SCM correctly (so it does not
artificially manipulate the mtime)

I always thought the correct solution was whatever you were able to do that works most reliably.  It's not always that you get to tell the company how to run it's SCM system.

It's not like we are "build ingénues". There's a lot of software out there, a lot of build problems some of us bump into which includes things one would never contemplate until one actually had that problem oneself.  After a lot of miserable experiences we come here to mention the things we think would have helped us, got us out of some problem, allowed us to do a better job.  I can think of a range of issues which customised handling of up-to-dateness would make much easier both conceptually and practically not to mention the benefit of potentially being able to apply it to existing builds without rewriting them.


Timothy Murphy

You could help some brave and decent people to have access to uncensored news by making a donation at:


reply via email to

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