Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ant.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Ant Developers List" <dev@ant.apache.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:31:12 +0100
Message-Id: <200502172031.j1HKVC6t005698@ajax.apache.org>
From: bugzilla@apache.org
To: dev@ant.apache.org
Subject: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 33626]  -
    Uptodate condition is not workinge

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=33626>.
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=33626


------- Additional Comments From gudnabrsam@yahoo.com  2005-02-17 21:31 -------
Okay, I messed up quite a bit there.  I misread your problem, in the first
place.  You do expect the file to be out-of-date, but it is not.  The
documentation says "the value of the property is set to true if the timestamp of
the target file(s) is more recent than the timestamp of the corresponding source
file(s)."  This is perhaps a misstatement as the code uses
"targetFile.lastModified() >= sourceFile.lastModified()".  This change was made
in response to bug 16119 (reported against 1.5.1), which demonstrated that the
behavior was different for attributes vs. filesets.  At this point, then, it is
perhaps the documentation that should be altered to read "the value of the
property is set to true if the timestamp of the source file(s) is not more
recent than the timestamp of the corresponding target file(s)."

Sorry for the confusion,
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: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org