DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43235>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43235 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-29 13:13 ------- (In reply to comment #5) > I release that this is documented and that is the intention > of the code. However it is very strange (unexpected) to > ignore the setting given in the build file: > > <touch datetime="03/03/2003 03:33 AM"> > <fileset dir="test" includes="src/**/*.java" /> > <mapper type="regexp" from="^src(.*)\.java$$" > to="test/classes\1.class"/> > </touch> > Okay, point taken. > It is clearly (I think) the intent of the build author to set the date on the > class files to the datetime attribute, whereas: > <touch> > <fileset dir="test" includes="src/**/*.java" /> > <mapper type="regexp" from="^src(.*)\.java$$" > to="test/classes\1.class"/> > </touch> > one could argue that the timestamps of the .class files should be > set to the timestamp of the correspond java files (although one > could also argue that this is also surprising behavior). Your arguments are pretty good; I am fine with changing the behavior, especially when datetime|millis is specified. I'm still up in the air on mapping without specifying modification time whether current time or inheriting time is more obviously correct. Possibly the former, but can you think of an appropriate attribute to trigger "timestamp inheritance"? -Matt -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
