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] 2007-08-31 08:13 ------- (In reply to comment #8) > Remark to comment #7 > The only drawback is that this would prohibit using touch with mapper to do > the most normal task for touch (to update to time=now) > > Alternative suggestion: > Instead of a new attribute we could invent a new value for "datetime" the > value "now" > > Touch used without mapper -> behaviour unchanged > touch with mapper timestamp not specifeid -> inherrit time (as today) > touch with mapper and timestamp specified -> use the time specified > touch with mapper and timestamp specified as "now" -> set time to curent time > > We could keep the current behaviour of timestamp transfering if no I also thought of timestamp="now" the other day. :) I think I would be okay with this but as it would only exist for this particular use case it's maybe a little weird... are you still with us, Peter? WDYT? -- 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]
