RE: AW: Timestamp issue with "svn status" in 1.9.3

Hello Philip > > Instead of "why is the second change not reported" it should be "why > > is the first change reported". > > > > Relevant part of the script: > > At this point Subversion has recorded a timestamp for the file. > > > echo "2" > x > > touch -m -t "20121231.00" x > > svn

Re: AW: Timestamp issue with "svn status" in 1.9.3

Peter Klotz writes: > Instead of "why is the second change not reported" it should be "why > is the first change reported". > > Relevant part of the script: At this point Subversion has recorded a timestamp for the file. > echo "2" > x > touch -m -t

AW: Timestamp issue with "svn status" in 1.9.3

Hello Stefan Thank you for the quick and detailed response. > > When changing the timestamp of a file to an earlier point in time and > leaving the file size unchanged yet altering the content, Subversion is > not always able to detect this change. > > The attached test case is the simplest we