<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Bert Freudenberg <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bert@freudenbergs.de" target="_blank">bert@freudenbergs.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=""><br>
> On 20.10.2015, at 20:07, Chris Muller <<a href="mailto:asqueaker@gmail.com">asqueaker@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Eliot Miranda <<a href="mailto:eliot.miranda@gmail.com">eliot.miranda@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _,,,^..^,,,_ (phone)<br>
>><br>
>>> On Oct 20, 2015, at 8:38 AM, Bert Freudenberg <<a href="mailto:bert@freudenbergs.de">bert@freudenbergs.de</a>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>>> On 18.10.2015, at 01:39, <a href="mailto:commits@source.squeak.org">commits@source.squeak.org</a> wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Marcel Taeumel uploaded a new version of System to project The Trunk:<br>
>>>> <a href="http://source.squeak.org/trunk/System-mt.771.mcz" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://source.squeak.org/trunk/System-mt.771.mcz</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> ==================== Summary ====================<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Name: System-mt.771<br>
>>>> Author: mt<br>
>>>> Time: 17 October 2015, 6:38:55.72 pm<br>
>>>> UUID: 4aee8d76-cfcf-ad48-ae3e-6d971ce6fea9<br>
>>>> Ancestors: System-cmm.770<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Log change stamps at the granularity of seconds not only minutes.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Why? A minute is quite long and it is likely to have two method (versions) with the same timestamp.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Why does the time stamp have to be unique? And it’s still not certain to be unique. IMHO minutes resolution is good enough and reads nicer.<br>
>><br>
>> +1. Marcel, if you really need this why not make it a preference, off by default.<br>
><br>
> Marcel already gave compelling use-cases for why he wants<br>
> finer-grained timestamps.<br>
<br>
</span>I had missed that discussion. But I read it now and the only use case Marcel mentioned was comparing method versions, and claiming comparing time stamps was faster than comparing the source code. But AFICT both timestamps and source code are retrieved from the source file each time so the difference should not be huge. Even if it was faster then you could still compare the timestamps first and compare the source only if the times are the same.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>+1. Bert is right. One has to go to the file for either.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span class=""><br>
> I'm failing to understand why anyone would be against more precision<br>
> internally.. You don't have to use it, it doesn't hurt anything if<br>
> its there, does it?<br>
<br>
</span>It makes source files even more verbose than they are now. MC’s timestamps are overkill IMHO. So without a compelling reason I would not change it. I could see good arguments for adding a timezone, but that would still not necessitate higher resolution. And after all, you cannot compare timestamps across images anyway, because you cannot rely on the clock being globally synchronized. And within a system, seconds plus order in the changes files are sufficient.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
- Bert -</font></span></blockquote><div> </div></div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><span style="font-size:small;border-collapse:separate"><div>_,,,^..^,,,_<br></div><div>best, Eliot</div></span></div></div></div>
</div></div>