Message 198684 - Python tracker

➜

This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author	loewis
Recipients	eli.bendersky, ezio.melotti, loewis, pitrou
Date	2013-09-30.08:34:56
SpamBayes Score	-1.0
Marked as misclassified	Yes
Message-id	<1380530096.35.0.222668191617.issue19106@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to

Content
I see two solutions, both involving to track the newest timestamp that needs to pass. a) touch the file to have a time stamp in the future. make might complain, though. b) sleep until a second has passed, then touch (actually, sleep of 100ms multiple times until the time stamp is new enough) The key issue is that hg touch should use the same comparison as make. So if make thinks that something need to be done, hg touch should touch the files.

I see two solutions, both involving to track the newest timestamp that needs to pass.
a) touch the file to have a time stamp in the future. make might complain, though.
b) sleep until a second has passed, then touch (actually, sleep of 100ms multiple times until the time stamp is new enough)

The key issue is that hg touch should use the same comparison as make. So if make thinks that something need to be done, hg touch should touch the files.

History
Date	User	Action	Args
2013-09-30 08:34:56	loewis	set	recipients: + loewis, pitrou, ezio.melotti, eli.bendersky
2013-09-30 08:34:56	loewis	set	messageid: <1380530096.35.0.222668191617.issue19106@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2013-09-30 08:34:56	loewis	link	issue19106 messages
2013-09-30 08:34:56	loewis	create