Re: [Quilt-dev] [PATCH] Enhanced decoration for "series -v" command

[Peter Williams]

Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 June 2005 03:49, Peter Williams wrote:
>
> > Attached is a patch (on top of my previous patch) that addresses the
> > false positives issue.  It seems to work well with one of my playgrounds
> > that has quite extensive overlapping of patches.
> >
> > The reason that I've provided this as a patch on top of my previous
> > patch is to make it easier to see the changes involved.
> >
> > I'm fairly sure that this change won't have any adverse effects for the
> > use of files_may_have_changed() within the "pop" command but would value
> > the opinion of others.
>
>
> Your version of files_may_have_changed is more exact than the current version, 
> but it still is not perfect, and it is *much* slower: next_patch_for_file is 
> slow; we definitely don't want to have it on the common path of execution of 
> the pop command.

OK.  I'll change the code to get next_patch_for_file() off the common path.

> The reason why your version of files_may_have_changed is still not exact is 
> that all files that a pop restores get the current timestamp to play nice 
> with tools like make, so after that, files_may_have_changed will start to 
> give false positives. An exact version of files_may_have_changed would have 
> to keep track of the timestamps of all files that any patch modifies.

Yes.  It looks like a "diff --brief" may be necessary as a last resort.

BTW If we can get files_may_have_changed() working properly then parts 
of "pop" may (possibly) be simplified which may regain some of the lost 
efficiency.

Peter
--
Peter Williams                                   address@hidden

"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
 -- Ambrose Bierce