From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] better introduction of GIT with USE_NSEC defined Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 23:38:09 -0800 Message-ID: <7v8wnk4dy6.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <6d937a859ca499f534eea08720fca84f3d4ded2f.1236187259.git.barvik@broadpark.no> <7vk5744x87.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <86prgwqvzr.fsf@broadpark.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Kjetil Barvik X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Mar 05 08:39:55 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 1Lf8BM-0003Gh-G4 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 05 Mar 2009 08:39:52 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753566AbZCEHiT (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Mar 2009 02:38:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753481AbZCEHiT (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Mar 2009 02:38:19 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([207.106.133.19]:48812 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751956AbZCEHiS (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Mar 2009 02:38:18 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE1399FC99; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 02:38:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [68.225.240.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5591A9FC96; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 02:38:13 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <86prgwqvzr.fsf@broadpark.no> (Kjetil Barvik's message of "Thu, 05 Mar 2009 08:17:28 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 973E01D8-0958-11DE-9540-CFA5EBB1AA3C-77302942!a-sasl-fastnet.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Kjetil Barvik writes: > Junio C Hamano writes: > ... >> How does this affect a use case where the same index file used with two >> instances of git (one compiled with and another without USE_NSEC)? > > If both persons in this use case use this patch, the one with USE_NSEC > defined will now be able to take full advantage of the nanosecond > timestamps at all times. > > The one without USE_NSEC defined should not be able to tell the > difference (without looking into to details of the index file). As long as the implementation does not give false cleanliness it is perfectly fine; false dirtinesss is just a bit of wasted cycle. Thanks.