At Thu, 10 Jul 2014 17:54:49 +0200, Stephan Beal wrote: > i apologize if i gave that impression. i was refering to "re-thinking" in > terms of "fixing," as > opposed to removing. i would not, in fact, mind if symlink support was dumped > (i have always > felt it falls outside of fossil's core, but i also know i'm in the minority > there), but it > can't be removed while retaining compatibility, and people do indeed use it. > i have not added > it to libfossil yet, but will indeed have to at some point, or risk > alienating any repos which > use them.
No worries. I just wanted to make sure that the developers were aware that there are use cases for it, but perhaps it is not a popular feature, or is at least misunderstood. I use fossil for both software development and sysadmin tasks, and I while I have to admit that I only want to follow symlinks for the latter, it is a huge benefit in that case, and I strongly suspect that people who complain about it just want "allow-symlinks" set to "on" in the default configuration, which I wouldn't disagree with (and the way it is worded is counterintuitive). Regards, Tim > Disorganization is a constant on my end ;). :) Regards, Tim _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
