Re: Branches & directories

From: Hilco Wijbenga <hilco.wijbenga@gmail.com>
To: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Cc: Robin Rosenberg <robin.rosenberg@gmail.com>,
	Kyle Moffett <kyle@moffetthome.net>,
	Michael Witten <mfwitten@gmail.com>,
	Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
	Evan Shelhamer <shelhamer@imaginarynumber.net>,
	Git Mailing List <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Branches & directories
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 00:15:33 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAE1pOi2xmVHrVJcC85wvCv=anhn_kYizyUMpUVZF4EE33RoGmg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111003030723.GA24523@sigill.intra.peff.net>

On 2 October 2011 20:07, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
<snip/>
> Or did you really mean your example literally, as in you run two
> checkouts back to back, without running anything in between, and the
> second checkout restores the state before the first one. In that case,
> yes, it would be correct to keep the old timestamps. But this is an
> optimization that can only apply in a few very specific cases. And
> moreoever, how can git know when it is OK to apply that optimization? It
> has no idea what commands you might have run since the last time we were
> at "master".

Yes, I meant it literally. And, no, Git could not possibly know so it
would have to be optional behaviour. But it's probably a lot of work
for (for most people) little gain.