Re: [Duplicity-talk] Non-integer mtime

[Kenneth Loafman]

Soren Hansen wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> I'm trying out duplicity and it seems that duplicity stores its
> timestamps as ints, but I use XFS which has nanosecond resolution. I
> believe utimes(2) only allows us to see microsecond resolution, but this
> still means that there's about a 1:1000 chance that duplicity will think
> that a given file has not had its timestamp updated. :)
> 
> The easy fix would of course be to cast the st_mtime from that stat call
> to an int, but it seems more correct to actually store the full
> timestamp.
> 
> Thoughts?

This may have to be marked as a bug if it becomes important to track.

I'm not sure how you would miss an update unless:
1) the update on that file happened as the file was backed up,
2) the update happened within one second, and
3) the file was not updated after that.

Kind of a small, very unlikely, scenario.

...Ken

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature