DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33626>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33626 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|INVALID | ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-17 21:05 ------- (In reply to comment #1) > If you had two files with the exact same modification time, you couldn't be sure > that the source file was not modified after the target file, especially when you > account for filesystem granularity (1 s under UNIX, 2 s on FAT/Windows). I think we need a second opinion on this based on the following reasons: 1) If what you are saying is true, then how could the Uptodate condition ever return false? As the documentation states, the test condition is based on both the source file and target file timestamps. If this is the case, please explain in what scenario would the condition ever return false? 2) The behavior you are suggesting goes against what is stated in the documentation. 3) If 2 files have the exact modification time, should't it be assumed that the files where last modified at the same time? 4) It worked fine in version 1.5.1. Are saying that 1.5.1 had a bug and was changed to act as it does now? Could you provide me with the bug Id, so I can get a better understanding of a workaround? -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
