Re: ci breaks links unnecessarily & when it says file is unchanged

Paul Eggert wrote:
> L A Walsh wrote:
>> 1) Why are hardlinks _ever_ broken on checking a file in?
>
> ci has always done that, since it may need to change the file and/or 
> make it read-only.
---
    Just because something had a design flaw to begin with is not a 
justification for it remaining a bug.  If it *needs* to make it 
read-only, or needs to make a change, then it is expected, but just to 
break links "in case".

    If you believe that is sufficient reason, then cp should break links 
in case it needs to update the access time on source files. 
If it isn't valid there, it isn't valid elsewhere.
>
>> 2) especially in in the case when it says "file is unchanged"
>
> The diagnostic could be improved, yes. "file is unchanged" means the 
> revision is unchanged, not that the working file is untouched.
Yet it also indicates the original intent at the same time.  If nothing 
needs to be done in order to check it in, then neither does the source 
file need to be touched or changed.