> I spent a few hours trying to work out how to fake this up with a
> secondary file whose "modified" time-stamp serves as "up-to-date" for
> the primary it represents.
I imagine we're not alone, but perhaps an existence proof would have some
value: we have generic makefile code that provides thi
> After reading over your mail a couple of times, I realized that I hadn't
> thought things through very well. In fact, rather than saying "hash
> instead of time", I should have said "optional additional hash check
> when timestamp has changed".
Even so, I'm unclear about why "hash" is the thing
Hello Paul
Sorry to take so long to reply. I wanted to think your input over, and
I've had a pretty heavy load lately.
Signing over the copyright, and any other legal steps won't be a
problem. My company has no rights to work I do in my own time. I'm
mainly worried about the technical issues,
