Fix: Check if mtime before and after hash calculation match. - #36
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Check if mtime before and after hash calculation is matching, not sure how bad it is going to be from performace point of view, but this is temporary fix as discused in PR 35 here: laktak#35
Owner
|
I didn't see a difference in performance. The attributes should still be in the cache. I'll keep this for now. Thanks for looking into this and let me know if it helps! |
Contributor
Author
|
I tested it today, so far after 25-28 runs, i dont see any DMG as of yet, so looks good to me, before this fix in 10-12 runs i would definitely see a DMG in that folder. Thanks for the help and including this. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Check if mtime before and after hash calculation is matching, not sure how bad it is going to be from performace point of view, but this is temporary fix as discused in PR 35 here: #35