From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] rerere: fix overeager gc Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 08:02:34 +0200 Message-ID: <4C31757A.1000207@viscovery.net> References: <1277811498-17288-1-git-send-email-szeder@ira.uka.de> <7vy6dx90uk.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <4C2AE04E.9090901@viscovery.net> <7v1vbn417d.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <4C2D7DF7.8030408@viscovery.net> <7vmxu923up.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?SZEDER_G=E1bor?= , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jul 05 08:02:52 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OVelU-0006AG-8O for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Mon, 05 Jul 2010 08:02:48 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752008Ab0GEGCn (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Jul 2010 02:02:43 -0400 Received: from lilzmailso02.liwest.at ([212.33.55.13]:43710 "EHLO lilzmailso02.liwest.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751498Ab0GEGCm (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Jul 2010 02:02:42 -0400 Received: from cpe228-254.liwest.at ([81.10.228.254] helo=theia.linz.viscovery) by lilzmailso02.liwest.at with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OVelK-0005sL-9Q; Mon, 05 Jul 2010 08:02:38 +0200 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (J6T.linz.viscovery [192.168.1.95]) by theia.linz.viscovery (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62B7B1660F; Mon, 5 Jul 2010 08:02:35 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100512 Thunderbird/3.0.5 In-Reply-To: <7vmxu923up.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: 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