From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 118EC1F461 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 18:53:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2388972AbfHVSxA (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Aug 2019 14:53:00 -0400 Received: from bsmtp7.bon.at ([213.33.87.19]:63971 "EHLO bsmtp7.bon.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729276AbfHVSw6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Aug 2019 14:52:58 -0400 Received: from dx.site (unknown [93.83.142.38]) by bsmtp7.bon.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 46DtvV5VMyz5tlB; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 20:52:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by dx.site (Postfix) with ESMTP id A226F1D1B; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 20:52:53 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] t0021: make sure clean filter runs To: Thomas Gummerer Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?SZEDER_G=c3=a1bor?= , git@vger.kernel.org, rsbecker@nexbridge.com, johannes.schindelin@gmx.de, larsxschneider@gmail.com References: <20190820065625.128130-1-t.gummerer@gmail.com> <20190821145616.GB2679@cat> <20190821220355.GZ20404@szeder.dev> <20190822174901.GA71239@cat> From: Johannes Sixt Message-ID: <79284459-d338-be91-5d13-8f06890f438f@kdbg.org> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 20:52:53 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190822174901.GA71239@cat> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Am 22.08.19 um 19:49 schrieb Thomas Gummerer: > Right, the above is why I think 'touch' is a good idea here. Short of > system clocks jumping around, which will most likely break more than > this test anyway it guarantees that the timestamp is equal or greater > than the timestamp of the index, which is what we need here. Ok, thanks for the clarification. I didn't see the context. It looks like touch is good enough. -- Hannes