You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hi, I was surprised that better-adb-sync does not preserve the "second" part of the modification timestamp (a.k.a. mtime) when syncing files from Android to an external storage. Here is an example of the stat output on a file which was supposed to have mtime = 2022-03-07 12:21:13.504455586 -0500.
On the Android device, the actual mtime was 2022-03-07 12:21:13.504455586 -0500 , and on an NTFS disk (the file was pulled from the Android phone into the disk using adb pull), the mtime became 2022-03-07 17:21:13.000000000 -0500.
I found from the source code snippet shown on bug #24 (#24) that this problem was apparently created "by design", since the timeformat string (for use with strftime) did not include the seconds. Could this be fixed? I'd rather have a timestamp accurate down to the second level; perhaps Windows/NTFS does not support more resolution than that.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi, I was surprised that better-adb-sync does not preserve the "second" part of the modification timestamp (a.k.a. mtime) when syncing files from Android to an external storage. Here is an example of the
stat
output on a file which was supposed to have mtime =2022-03-07 12:21:13.504455586 -0500
.On a local Windows computer (NTFS partition):
On the Android device, the actual mtime was
2022-03-07 12:21:13.504455586 -0500
, and on an NTFS disk (the file was pulled from the Android phone into the disk usingadb pull
), the mtime became2022-03-07 17:21:13.000000000 -0500
.I found from the source code snippet shown on bug #24 (#24) that this problem was apparently created "by design", since the timeformat string (for use with
strftime
) did not include the seconds. Could this be fixed? I'd rather have a timestamp accurate down to the second level; perhaps Windows/NTFS does not support more resolution than that.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: