Hello Jon,
 
concerning the modify time: it's fine for me when the time goes backwards
on a revert. With a revert, I want everything reverted.
 
But I understand your issue with the compiler.
For this, in TortoiseSVN there is an option (in the General section).
Maybe it would be good to have such an option in SVN, too.
 
Paul.
 


  _____  

Von: Jon Bauman [mailto:jon.bau...@isilon.com] 
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 3. November 2010 23:45
An: users@subversion.apache.org
Betreff: svn revert causes file modification times to go backward



I noticed that after an SVN revert, the files I reverted didn't seem to be 
getting rebuilt. To my surprise, the modify time
following the revert went backwards rather than forwards. Even more confusing, 
the change time went forward as expected. Following a
"touch", everything is copacetic and make successfully rebuilds the file.

$ stat foo.c
  File: `foo.c'
  Size: 107262          Blocks: 224        IO Block: 4096   regular file
Device: 811h/2065d      Inode: 3563541     Links: 1
Access: (0644/-rw-r--r--)  Uid: ( 2354/ jbauman)   Gid: ( 1000/ jbauman)
Access: 2010-11-03 15:21:56.000000000 -0700
Modify: 2010-11-03 15:21:38.000000000 -0700
Change: 2010-11-03 15:21:38.000000000 -0700
$ svn revert foo.c; stat foo.c; touch foo.c; stat foo.c
Reverted 'foo.c'
  File: `foo.c'
  Size: 107255          Blocks: 224        IO Block: 4096   regular file
Device: 811h/2065d      Inode: 3563542     Links: 1
Access: (0644/-rw-r--r--)  Uid: ( 2354/ jbauman)   Gid: ( 1000/ jbauman)
Access: 2010-11-03 15:22:40.000000000 -0700
Modify: 2010-11-02 14:53:49.000000000 -0700
Change: 2010-11-03 15:22:40.000000000 -0700
  File: `foo.c'
  Size: 107255          Blocks: 224        IO Block: 4096   regular file
Device: 811h/2065d      Inode: 3563542     Links: 1
Access: (0644/-rw-r--r--)  Uid: ( 2354/ jbauman)   Gid: ( 1000/ jbauman)
Access: 2010-11-03 15:22:41.000000000 -0700
Modify: 2010-11-03 15:22:41.000000000 -0700
Change: 2010-11-03 15:22:41.000000000 -0700

$ svn --version
svn, version 1.5.5 (r34862)
   compiled Jan  8 2009, 05:34:48


Reply via email to