On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de>
wrote:

>
> > On 20.10.2015, at 20:07, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> _,,,^..^,,,_ (phone)
> >>
> >>> On Oct 20, 2015, at 8:38 AM, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 18.10.2015, at 01:39, commits at source.squeak.org wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Marcel Taeumel uploaded a new version of System to project The Trunk:
> >>>> http://source.squeak.org/trunk/System-mt.771.mcz
> >>>>
> >>>> ==================== Summary ====================
> >>>>
> >>>> Name: System-mt.771
> >>>> Author: mt
> >>>> Time: 17 October 2015, 6:38:55.72 pm
> >>>> UUID: 4aee8d76-cfcf-ad48-ae3e-6d971ce6fea9
> >>>> Ancestors: System-cmm.770
> >>>>
> >>>> Log change stamps at the granularity of seconds not only minutes.
> >>>>
> >>>> Why? A minute is quite long and it is likely to have two method
> (versions) with the same timestamp.
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> +1.  Marcel, if you really need this why not make it a preference, off
> by default.
> >
> > Marcel already gave compelling use-cases for why he wants
> > finer-grained timestamps.
>
> 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.
>

+1.  Bert is right.  One has to go to the file for either.


>
> > I'm failing to understand why anyone would be against more precision
> > internally..  You don't have to use it, it doesn't hurt anything if
> > its there, does it?
>
> 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.
>
> - Bert -


_,,,^..^,,,_
best, Eliot
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20151020/c20017b3/attachment.htm