Re: [RFC PATCH] rerere: fix overeager gc
- From
Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net>
- Date
- Jul 5, 2010, 06:02 UTC
- Message-ID
- <4C31757A.1000207@viscovery.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vmxu923up.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
Am 7/2/2010 19:25, schrieb Junio C Hamano:
> If anything, "preimage" that has newer timestamp than "postimage" feels > wrong,...
Indeed; I agree.
> If we for whatever reason trust placing an extra timestamp on a regular > file more than using directory timestamp (which I think may be a valid > concern from portability point of view),
Windows behaves well in this regard. Writing of thisimage must be converted to lockfile infrastructure, of course.
> I'd rather see "preimage" > timestamp to keep track of the time when we _first_ encountered the > particular conflict, and "postimage" used for recording the time when we > saw the conflict most recently.
That would be fine, too.
-- Hannes