From: Peter Backes <rtc@helen.PLASMA.Xg8.DE>
To: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>
Cc: Derek Fawcus <dfawcus+lists-git@employees.org>, git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Git should preserve modification times at least on request
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 23:14:20 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180221221420.GA7743@helen.PLASMA.Xg8.DE> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87bmgif2pa.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com>
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 only commit those files that had the same mtime in the same commit
> (or within some boundary).
I think that this would be The Wrong Thing to do.
The commit time is just that: The time the commit was done. The commit
is an atomic group of changes to a number of files that hopefully bring
the tree from one usable state into the next.
The mtime, in contrast, tells us when a file was most recently modified.
It may well be that main.c was most recently modified yesterday, and
feature.c was modified this morning, and that only both changes taken
together make sense as a commit, despite the long time in between.
Even worse, it may be that feature A took a long time to implement, so
we have huge gaps in between the mtimes, but feature B was quickly done
after A was finished. Such an algorithm would probably split feature A
incorrectly into several commits, and group the more recently changed
files of feature A with those of feature B.
And if Feature A and Feature B were developed in parallel, things get
completely messy.
> The advantage of doing this via such a tool is that you could tweak it
> to commit by any criteria you wanted, e.g. not mtime but ctime or even
> atime.
Maybe, but it would be rather useless to commit by ctime or atime. You
do one grep -r and the atime is different. You do one chmod or chown
and the ctime is different. Those timestamps are really only useful for
very limited purposes.
That ctime exists seems reasonable, since it's only ever updated when
the inode is written anyway.
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 generic way for tracing read() system calls instead; then
userspace could decide what to do with that information and which of it
is useful and should be kept and perhaps stored on disk. Now we have
this ugly hack called relatime to deal with the problem.
> You'd get the same thing as you'd get if git's tree format would change
> to include mtimes (which isn't going to happen), but with a lot more
> flexibility.
Well, from basic logic, I don't see how a decision not to implement a
feature could possibly increase flexility. The opposite seems to be the
case.
Best wishes
Peter
--
Peter Backes, rtc@helen.PLASMA.Xg8.DE
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-02-21 22:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-02-19 21:22 Git should preserve modification times at least on request Peter Backes
2018-02-19 21:58 ` Johannes Schindelin
2018-02-19 22:08 ` Peter Backes
2018-02-20 1:22 ` Theodore Ts'o
2018-02-20 10:46 ` Johannes Schindelin
2018-02-20 11:53 ` Peter Backes
2018-02-20 21:05 ` Peter Backes
2018-02-20 22:32 ` Johannes Schindelin
2018-02-20 22:48 ` Peter Backes
2018-02-21 21:30 ` Phillip Wood
2018-02-19 22:37 ` Randall S. Becker
2018-02-19 23:22 ` Hilco Wijbenga
2018-02-20 16:42 ` Hilco Wijbenga
2018-02-20 21:16 ` Jeff King
2018-02-20 22:05 ` Peter Backes
2018-02-21 9:48 ` Jacob Keller
2018-02-20 23:40 ` Junio C Hamano
2018-02-21 21:03 ` Derek Fawcus
2018-02-21 21:33 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2018-02-21 22:14 ` Peter Backes [this message]
2018-02-21 22:44 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2018-02-21 23:12 ` Peter Backes
2018-02-21 23:58 ` Randall S. Becker
2018-02-22 2:05 ` 'Peter Backes'
2018-02-26 10:56 ` Andreas Krey
2018-02-26 11:04 ` 'Peter Backes'
2018-02-22 23:24 ` Derek Fawcus
2018-02-23 12:28 ` Konstantin Khomoutov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180221221420.GA7743@helen.PLASMA.Xg8.DE \
--to=rtc@helen.plasma.xg8.de \
--cc=avarab@gmail.com \
--cc=dfawcus+lists-git@employees.org \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).