On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 07:20:56AM +0100, Andrew Pinder wrote:
> I will be happy to install an updated version of !Cache, especially if
> the problem I have happens to be solved. In the meantime I would
> appreciate it if the datestamps could be preserved so it doesn't
> appear to be updated.
Rob Kendrick wrote on 26 Sep:
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 07:20:56AM +0100, Andrew Pinder wrote:
>> I will be happy to install an updated version of !Cache, especially if
>> the problem I have happens to be solved. In the meantime I would
>> appreciate it if the datestamps could be preserved so it
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 12:46:56PM +0100, Jim Nagel wrote:
> Rob Kendrick wrote on 26 Sep:
> > On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 07:20:56AM +0100, Andrew Pinder wrote:
> >> I will be happy to install an updated version of !Cache, especially if
> >> the problem I have happens to be solved. In the meantime I
In message <20140926130057.gi20...@platypus.pepperfish.net>
on 26 Sep 2014 Rob Kendrick wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 12:46:56PM +0100, Jim Nagel wrote:
>> Rob Kendrick wrote on 26 Sep:
>>> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 07:20:56AM +0100, Andrew Pinder wrote:
I will be happy to install an upda
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 06:45:25PM +0100, Andrew Pinder wrote:
> Fair enough, and thanks for the link and explanation. However, I
> still don't understand why the date stamps are updated only
> intermittently,
Because the resources come as part of our compiler toolchain, and we
don't rebuild th
