Re: Branches & directories
- From
- Hilco Wijbenga <hilco.wijbenga@gmail.com>
- Date
- Oct 3, 2011, 07:15 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAE1pOi2xmVHrVJcC85wvCv=anhn_kYizyUMpUVZF4EE33RoGmg@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20111003030723.GA24523@sigill.intra.peff.net>
On 2 October 2011 20:07, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote: <snip/>
Show 8 quoted lines
> Or did you really mean your example literally, as in you run two > checkouts back to back, without running anything in between, and the > second checkout restores the state before the first one. In that case, > yes, it would be correct to keep the old timestamps. But this is an > optimization that can only apply in a few very specific cases. And > moreoever, how can git know when it is OK to apply that optimization? It > has no idea what commands you might have run since the last time we were > at "master".
Yes, I meant it literally. And, no, Git could not possibly know so it would have to be optional behaviour. But it's probably a lot of work for (for most people) little gain.