Personnally, I'm with Eliot, accuracy of timestamp doesn't really matter
for me...

If it's from my own computer, I'll use the change log for chronology, and
my immediate memory.
If it's to retrieve versions, I'll check the source code, and I do not see
why the price of comparing source would be so high... Marcel do you compare
thousands of versions ?

If it's from another computer, well, the chances that the clock are
synchronized...

Nicolas

2015-10-19 17:16 GMT+02:00 marcel.taeumel <Marcel.Taeumel at hpi.de>:

> Hi Eliot,
>
> actually, I would like to store the timestamp in all its details. ;-) Just
> like Monticello does.
>
> In my case, I wanted to quickly find out, which version is actually loaded
> in the image. In my environment, I filter-out all those duplicate entries
> in
> the changes file that occur when loading an older version:
>
> <http://forum.world.st/file/n4856499/method-versions-3.png>
>
> And show them like this:
>
> <http://forum.world.st/file/n4856499/method-versions-2.png>
>
> Yes, you don't see seconds there, but at least the comparison is accurate
> now. Milliseconds would be welcome, too. :-D
>
> So, comparing hashes of CompiledMethods provides too many false positives
> (samples only ~20 bytes). Comparing the full source strings is too slow...
> :-) ...and not necessary because the timestamps are there anyway.
>
> Best,
> Marcel
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://forum.world.st/The-Trunk-System-mt-771-mcz-tp4856201p4856499.html
> Sent from the Squeak - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20151019/a3c6e1be/attachment.htm