Re: Git checkout preserve timestamp?
- From
Bill Lear <rael@zopyra.com>
- Date
- Mar 6, 2007, 01:59 UTC
- Message-ID
- <17900.51972.524213.320552@lisa.zopyra.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <Pine.LNX.4.63.0703060227150.22628@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>
On Tuesday, March 6, 2007 at 02:34:27 (+0100) Johannes Schindelin writes:
Show 16 quoted lines
>On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Bill Lear wrote: >> On Tuesday, March 6, 2007 at 00:50:16 (+0100) Johannes Schindelin writes: >> >On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Bill Lear wrote: >> >> No, I think you missed my point. There are two xyz.o's: >> >> >> >> One in .master/xyz.o, and one in .branchX/xyz.o. >> > >> >Why not put the two xyz.c's into .master/ and .branchX/ as well (surely, >> >the source files are small compared to the object files)? And just to make >> >sure ... >> >> So, be resorting to snide sarcasm, I can see you concede my point, >> finally. > >If you would have cared to actually read and try to understand my reply >here:
Which I did, your baseless presumption to the contrary notwithstanding.
Show 6 quoted lines
>you would have seen long ago that I actually see your problem, and want >the something similar myself. This is what I "concede". Always have. Only >that I use a sane method to achieve it. And that was my point you >consistently refused to accept. >... >You don't have to thank me, as you clearly chose to ignore my help.
Your presumption is again false: your point was that my logic was confused, that the entire dependency scheme I sketched out was "stupid", and you and another expended considerable effort to show how stupid this was, which now is clearly wrong --- my explanation and example wasn't stupid after all. I was merely trying to convey WHAT I wanted to have happen, and HOW, logically speaking, it could. What I got from you and one other ON THIS PART was that my logic was STUPID, IDIOTIC, etc., though to their credit, several others merely chimed in with their opinion and helped the discussion along by presenting argument, example, and not invective and mere assertion that my logic was very much beneath contempt.
I saw and appreciated your earlier explanation, and will be trying to work with it, and those the others suggested. My guess is that it will not be as buttery-smooth as I would have hoped, but it will probably do well enough.
Your petulance and quick temper to dismiss someone as stupid merely because he pursues a line of discussion that you yourself admittedly confuse, not to mention your name-calling --- both explicit and veiled --- really is not helpful, though your suggestions on how to use git better certainly are, and I do very much appreciate them here, and elsewhere.
Bill