On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 09:25:01PM -0700, Joe Mistachkin wrote: > > Warren Young wrote: > > > > Well, that's a tricky one, innit? Fossil manages files, not directories, > > but Fossil's view of symlinks is file-like. So is it an apple or an > > orange? > > > > I've checked in a fix on the dirSymlinks branch that appears to completely > fix the issue I personally encountered. > > I would appreciate wider testing of it. >
Sorry if I'm late, but I just encounter some issues with the "dirSymlinks" branch. (which is now merged on trunk). I believe that it conflict with the "allow-symlinks" feature. When I enable "allow-symlinks", I want *any* symlinks (file or directory), to be stored in the repository as a special symlink file. I don't want to add the file (or directory) that is pointed by the symlink, I just want the same symlink to be created on a new checkout. I saw that a new change recently get merged (from noSymlinks branch) that address this issue by adding a "--no-symlinks" option to almost all command that have to deal with symlinks. While it does what I need when using the "--no-symlinks" option, I think it should be the default behavior (especially when "allow-symlinks" is enable). I understand that the dirsymlinks feature can be useful, but it think it needs a separate options in order to keep same default behavior as before. Any thought ? Thanks -- Martin G. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
