From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Heiko Voigt Subject: Re: On git 1.6 (novice's opinion) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 22:37:30 +0200 Message-ID: <20090401203730.GB90837@macbook.lan> References: <49CC8C90.12268.242CEFCE@Ulrich.Windl.rkdvmks1.ngate.uni-regensburg.de> <49D339B2.4388.6B1DEF@Ulrich.Windl.rkdvmks1.ngate.uni-regensburg.de> <49D327C4.7000101@op5.se> <49D35454.12423.D32681@Ulrich.Windl.rkdvmks1.ngate.uni-regensburg.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andreas Ericsson , Russ Dill , "H.Merijn Brand" , git@vger.kernel.org To: Ulrich Windl X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Apr 01 22:39:23 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Lp7DL-0007bC-Fq for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 01 Apr 2009 22:39:11 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763014AbZDAUhh (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Apr 2009 16:37:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760921AbZDAUhg (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Apr 2009 16:37:36 -0400 Received: from darksea.de ([83.133.111.250]:43324 "HELO darksea.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1757188AbZDAUhf (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Apr 2009 16:37:35 -0400 Received: (qmail 16864 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2009 22:37:18 +0200 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 1 Apr 2009 22:37:18 +0200 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49D35454.12423.D32681@Ulrich.Windl.rkdvmks1.ngate.uni-regensburg.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 11:47:31AM +0200, Ulrich Windl wrote: > So I really don't see that relying on file dates is much better than > doing a full rebuild. That's specifically true if you pull a new tree: > If I understand things right, EVERY file will have a current date, so > you'll rebuild everything anyway. So you could also have the "real > file dates" and then do "make clean; make all". I see no benefit from > either approach. I am not sure if you understand it right. When switching branches git will only touch the files that have changed between your old and your new tree. make will then only build those files that are actually different between those two trees because they have been given a newer date than their target files. All other files in your working copy will not be touched. cheers Heiko