[softwarelist] Re: SyncDiscs - a new version (1.20)
- From: Brian Carroll <briancarroll@xxxxxxx>
- To: davidpilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 09 May 2010 18:03:30 +0100
In article <5114c21d49chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Chris
Johnson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In article <5114afe1d3briancarroll@xxxxxxx>, Brian Carroll
> <briancarroll@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > There is also the anomaly (IMHO) in the RISC OS filer that
> > copies of a directory are given the datestamp of the copy
> > time rather than retain their original. I don't see how
> > this would affect the current question though.
> No, it shouldn't do. The only time SyncDiscs deals directly
> with directories is if the directory does not exist on one of
> the paths, so it will be copied/deleted as a whole. Otherwise,
> it is the file attributes of the files within that are
> compared, not the directory time stamps.
> I assume the 'anomaly' is due to the filer creating
> directories before filling them with files. Thus the so-called
> copied directory/ies actually have the timestamp corresponding
> to the time of their creation.
Yes, that is a good explanation of what happens. I still would
like the newly-created directory to be 'stamped' back to its
original date-time. Moving a directory, which copies first then
deletes, appears to preserve the datestamp so it can be done.
Sub-directories are also mis-stamped but applications are not; if
the '!' is removed the application behaves as an ordinary
directory, of course. I see the same behaviour with a special
Boot directory I have which is named !Boot+: it is not an
application, but behaves like one.
Brian.
--
______________________________________________________________
Brian Carroll, Ripon, N Yorks, UK briancarroll at f2s dot com
______________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or subscribe goto: //www.freelists.org/list/davidpilling
Other related posts:
