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: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD9031F910 for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 20:26:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229761AbiJaU0w (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Oct 2022 16:26:52 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:55644 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229890AbiJaU0s (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Oct 2022 16:26:48 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 573 seconds by postgrey-1.37 at lindbergh.monkeyblade.net; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 13:26:45 PDT Received: from mail-out.m-online.net (mail-out.m-online.net [212.18.0.9]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 090F912AE5 for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 13:26:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from frontend03.mail.m-online.net (unknown [192.168.6.182]) by mail-out.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4N1PZY1dyKz1r1gh; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 21:17:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (dynscan3.mnet-online.de [192.168.6.84]) by mail.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4N1PZY1F9dz1qqlR; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 21:17:09 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mnet-online.de Received: from mail.mnet-online.de ([192.168.8.182]) by localhost (dynscan3.mail.m-online.net [192.168.6.84]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PcZSUxixQXgk; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 21:17:08 +0100 (CET) X-Auth-Info: AW3rerImvXGEs+M7bDoiNQZlxQPiwcg2qEkpFGGVd4uJT/QzjlufbGrLVEjyg9Pp Received: from igel.home (aftr-82-135-86-233.dynamic.mnet-online.de [82.135.86.233]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail.mnet-online.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 21:17:08 +0100 (CET) Received: by igel.home (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 53A842C35DD; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 21:17:08 +0100 (CET) From: Andreas Schwab To: Mark Hills Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Consist timestamps within a checkout/clone References: <2210311614160.25661@stax.localdomain> X-Yow: Look!! Karl Malden! Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2022 21:17:08 +0100 In-Reply-To: <2210311614160.25661@stax.localdomain> (Mark Hills's message of "Mon, 31 Oct 2022 19:01:20 +0000 (GMT)") Message-ID: <878rkvychn.fsf@igel.home> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Okt 31 2022, Mark Hills wrote: > It's entirely possible there's _never_ a guarantee of consistency here. I don't think the order in which git writes the individual files is defined in any way. Thus depending on the precision of the time stamps in the file system whether a file ends up newer than another one may vary each time due to timing differences. -- Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org GPG Key fingerprint = 7578 EB47 D4E5 4D69 2510 2552 DF73 E780 A9DA AEC1 "And now for something completely different."