SJS wrote: > begin quoting Carl Lowenstein as of Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:23:00PM -0700: >> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Ralph Shumaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> But gwget is working pretty well. I just wish I knew a way to force new >>> files written to that directory to be touched with the current timestamp >>> (since wget, and apparently gwget, preserves the original timestamp of the >>> file from the other computer). >> Different tastes for different people. > > Indeed, you speak wisdom. :) > >> I rather like the fact that >> wget preserves the original timestamp, since that is a property of the >> original file, not of the fact that I downloaded it at some later >> time. > > That information is not trustworthy, so I'm with Ralph; the time that I > downloaded a file is significant, the time that someone else SAYS they > touched the file is suspect. > > If it were useful, it could be modified and be used to fool me. > > If it's not useful, there's no need to worry about it. >
At the risk of pushing the cycle around some more, I notice that this thread reveals there is always more than one POV. This may not add much, but my view is sympathetic to cdl's observation about the context being that of syncing with repository sources -- not that he used exactly those words. The filename, size, and mtime are useful metadata for this purpose, despite being both insufficient and untrustworthy. These defects can be dealt with in various ways, which would be another conversation. Regards, ..jim -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
