Re: Git should preserve modification times at least on request

On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 03:05:35 +, 'Peter Backes' wrote: ... > The bigger issue is usually to copy with those pesky leap seconds. It > makes a difference whether one uses solar seconds ("posix" style; those > are more commonly seen) or atomic seconds ("right" style) for the UNIX > timestamp.

Re: Git should preserve modification times at least on request

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 11:56:42AM +0100, Andreas Krey wrote: > > The bigger issue is usually to copy with those pesky leap seconds. It > > makes a difference whether one uses solar seconds ("posix" style; those > > are more commonly seen) or atomic seconds ("right" style) for the UNIX > >

Re: Git should preserve modification times at least on request

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 11:14:20PM +0100, Peter Backes wrote: [...] > atime, in contrast, was clearly one of the rather nonsensical > innovations of UNIX: Do one write to the disk for each read from the > disk. C'mon, really? It would have been a lot more reasonable to simply > provide a

Re: Git should preserve modification times at least on request

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 11:44:13PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > On Wed, Feb 21 2018, Peter Backes jotted: > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:33:05PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > >> This sounds like a sensible job for a git import tool, i.e. import a > >> target directory into

Re: Git should preserve modification times at least on request

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 06:58:34PM -0500, Randall S. Becker wrote: > May I suggest storing the date/time in UTC+0 in all cases. I can see > potential issues a couple of times a year where holes exist. I cannot even > fathom what would happen on a merge or edit of history. I consider storing the

RE: Git should preserve modification times at least on request

On February 21, 2018 6:13 PM, Peter Backes wrote: > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 11:44:13PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > If it were added as a first-level feature to git it would present a > > lot of UX confusion. E.g. you run "git add" and it'll be showing the > > mtime somehow, or you

Re: Git should preserve modification times at least on request

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 11:44:13PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > If it were added as a first-level feature to git it would present a lot > of UX confusion. E.g. you run "git add" and it'll be showing the mtime > somehow, or you get a formatted patch over E-Mail and it doesn't only >

Re: Git should preserve modification times at least on request

On Wed, Feb 21 2018, Peter Backes jotted: > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:33:05PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: >> This sounds like a sensible job for a git import tool, i.e. import a >> target directory into git, and instead of 'git add'-ing the whole thing >> it would look at the mtimes,

Re: Git should preserve modification times at least on request

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:33:05PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > This sounds like a sensible job for a git import tool, i.e. import a > target directory into git, and instead of 'git add'-ing the whole thing > it would look at the mtimes, sort files by mtime, then add them in order > and

Re: Git should preserve modification times at least on request

On Wed, Feb 21 2018, Derek Fawcus jotted: > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 10:22:36PM +0100, Peter Backes wrote: >> >> It is pretty annoying that git cannot, even if I know what I am doing, >> and explicitly want it to, preserve the modification time. > > The use case I've come across where it would be

Re: Git should preserve modification times at least on request

On 20/02/18 22:48, Peter Backes wrote: On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:32:23PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: Hi Peter, On Tue, 20 Feb 2018, Peter Backes wrote: On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:46:38AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: I would probably invent a file format (``) I'm stuck there

Re: Git should preserve modification times at least on request

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 10:22:36PM +0100, Peter Backes wrote: > > It is pretty annoying that git cannot, even if I know what I am doing, > and explicitly want it to, preserve the modification time. The use case I've come across where it would be of value is for code archeology, either importing

Re: Git should preserve modification times at least on request

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 2:05 PM, Peter Backes wrote: > Hi Jeff, > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 04:16:34PM -0500, Jeff King wrote: >> I think there are some references buried somewhere in that wiki, but did >> you look at any of the third-party tools that store file metadata

Re: Git should preserve modification times at least on request

Jeff King writes: > Modification times are a subset of the total metadata you might care > about, so they are solving a much more general problem. Which may also > partially answer your question about why this isn't built into git. The > general problem gets much bigger when you

Re: Git should preserve modification times at least on request

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:32:23PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi Peter, > > On Tue, 20 Feb 2018, Peter Backes wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:46:38AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > > > I would probably invent a file format (``) > > > > I'm stuck there because of

Re: Git should preserve modification times at least on request

Hi Peter, On Tue, 20 Feb 2018, Peter Backes wrote: > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:46:38AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > I would probably invent a file format (``) > > I'm stuck there because of being munged. >From which command do you want to get it? If you are looking at `git diff`,

Re: Git should preserve modification times at least on request

Hi Jeff, On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 04:16:34PM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > I think there are some references buried somewhere in that wiki, but did > you look at any of the third-party tools that store file metadata > alongside the files in the repository? E.g.: > >

Re: Git should preserve modification times at least on request

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 10:22:36PM +0100, Peter Backes wrote: > please ensure to CC me if you reply as I am not subscribed to the list. > > https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Git_FAQ#Why_isn.27t_Git_preserving_modification_time_on_files.3F > > argues that git isn't preserving modification

Re: Git should preserve modification times at least on request

Hi Johannes, On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:46:38AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > If I were you [...] It seems all pretty straight forward, except for > I would probably invent a file format (``) I'm stuck there because of being munged. To obtain or set the mtime of the file, I need the

Re: Git should preserve modification times at least on request

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 3:22 PM, Hilco Wijbenga wrote: > Aside from exactly which modification times should be used (which I > would love to have a bit more control over as well), something else > I'd like to see is that, when switching between branches, files that > are

Re: Git should preserve modification times at least on request

Hello Johannes, On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:46:38AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Oh, sorry. I understood your mail as if you had told the core Git > developers that they should implement the feature you desire. I did not > understand that you hinted at a discussion first, and that you would

Re: Git should preserve modification times at least on request

Hi Peter, On Mon, 19 Feb 2018, Peter Backes wrote: > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 10:58:12PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > Since you already assessed that it shouldn't be hard to do, you > > probably want to put your money where your mouth is and come up with a > > patch, and then offer it up

Re: Git should preserve modification times at least on request

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 11:08:19PM +0100, Peter Backes wrote: > Is thetre some existing code that could be used? I think I read > somewhere that git once did preserve mtimes, but that this code was > removed because of the build tool issues. Perhaps that code could > simply be put back in, and

Re: Git should preserve modification times at least on request

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 2:37 PM, Randall S. Becker wrote: > On February 19, 2018 4:58 PM Johannes wrote: >> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018, Peter Backes wrote: >> >> > please ensure to CC me if you reply as I am not subscribed to the list. >> > >> >

RE: Git should preserve modification times at least on request

On February 19, 2018 4:58 PM Johannes wrote: > On Mon, 19 Feb 2018, Peter Backes wrote: > > > please ensure to CC me if you reply as I am not subscribed to the list. > > > > https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Git_FAQ#Why_isn.27t_Git_preservi > > ng_modification_time_on_files.3F argues that git

Re: Git should preserve modification times at least on request

Hi Johannes, On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 10:58:12PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Since you already assessed that it shouldn't be hard to do, you probably > want to put your money where your mouth is and come up with a patch, and > then offer it up for discussion on this here mailing list.

Re: Git should preserve modification times at least on request

Hi Peter, On Mon, 19 Feb 2018, Peter Backes wrote: > please ensure to CC me if you reply as I am not subscribed to the list. > > https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Git_FAQ#Why_isn.27t_Git_preserving_modification_time_on_files.3F > > argues that git isn't preserving modification times