Re: [fossil-users] symlinks (was Re: xkcd on git)

: Re: [fossil-users] symlinks (was Re: xkcd on git) On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 7:59 PM, David Mason <dma...@ryerson.ca> wrote: It's simple: a symlink is a filesystem artifact and should be reflected as such in the repository. It should not be followed; if foo is a symlink and I say "fs

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks (was Re: xkcd on git)

* Stephan Beal [20151105 08:09]: > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 7:59 PM, David Mason wrote: > > > > > It's simple: a symlink is a filesystem artifact and should be reflected as > > such in the repository. It should not be followed; if foo is a symlink and >

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks (was Re: xkcd on git)

Hi, On 2015-11-05 at 08:18 CET Stephan Beal wrote: >On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 7:59 PM, David Mason wrote: > >> It's simple: a symlink is a filesystem artifact and should be reflected as >> such in the repository. It should not be followed; if foo is a

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks (was Re: xkcd on git)

On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:52 PM, Stephan Beal wrote: > > You've hit it right on the head: POLICY. No SCM should enforce > project-specific policies, and symlinks (for me) fall into that category. I can argue the reverse on the same basis: Fossil shouldn’t be making a policy decision about what I

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks (was Re: xkcd on git)

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Stephan Beal wrote: > > Thanks to Joe for stepping in to stop the bikeshedding :). > Yeah. In that spirit, I will abstain from addressing your other points from this morning, since I think most of the useful arguments are already on the

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks (was Re: xkcd on git)

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Eric Rubin-Smith wrote: > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Stephan Beal > wrote: >> >> Thanks to Joe for stepping in to stop the bikeshedding :). >> > > Yeah. In that spirit, I will abstain from addressing your other

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks (was Re: xkcd on git)

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Stephan Beal wrote: > You've hit it right on the head: POLICY. No SCM should enforce > project-specific policies, and symlinks (for me) fall into that category. > And next time i'll finish reading the new thread posts before replying.

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks (was Re: xkcd on git)

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Eric Rubin-Smith wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 1:33 AM, Stephan Beal > wrote: > >> >> Absolute paths in an SCM are "just plain wrong" (IMO). Even the innocuous >> link to /etc might be wrong in certain build

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks (was Re: xkcd on git)

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 7:59 PM, David Mason wrote: > > It's simple: a symlink is a filesystem artifact and should be reflected as > such in the repository. It should not be followed; if foo is a symlink and > I say "fs add foo/bar" it should probably give an error. (This

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks (was Re: xkcd on git)

> > This issue was more subtle than it originally appeared. I think the > current > trunk > changes should make it work right for both versioned and non-versioned > allow-symlinks > settings. Thanks so much for looking at that. I was trying to get started writing some unit test cases around

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks (was Re: xkcd on git)

Thus said Eric Rubin-Smith on Wed, 04 Nov 2015 10:01:10 -0500: > * Failures: amend-comment-5.1 amend-comment-5.2 amend-comment-5.3 > amend-comment-5.4 These are unaffected. If you were to enable -verbose mode they would probably indicate that you're missing ed (necessary for testing

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks (was Re: xkcd on git)

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 12:33 AM, Stephan Beal wrote: > On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Eric Rubin-Smith wrote: >> A user who only ever uses fossil on unix should get unix symlink semantics >> on unix, without quirks or surprises. Surely you and DRH

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks (was Re: xkcd on git)

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 1:33 AM, Stephan Beal wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Eric Rubin-Smith > wrote: > >> the user when trying to move a tarball from one OS to another. In other >> words, I believe that you perceive a dichotomy that is

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks (was Re: xkcd on git)

> > > Just to clarify, what are the behavioral changes needed on the Unix side to > make > things work seamlessly? > (1) Default allow-symlinks to true (2) Fix bug in which the allow-symlinks setting is not honored while opening a repository (requires manual clean-up of symlinks after opening a

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks (was Re: xkcd on git)

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Eric Rubin-Smith wrote: > > - Symlinks. Now we're getting into file system specifics. Some users >> may want to track them because they find them useful. What about users >> that find FIFOs or block devices or character device useful? Should >>

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks (was Re: xkcd on git)

On 3 November 2015 at 10:48, Eric Rubin-Smith wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 1:33 AM, Stephan Beal > wrote: >> >> i can't speak for Richard, but if i had my way, fossil wouldn't support >> symlinks at all. >> > This would force me to stop using

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks (was Re: xkcd on git)

David Mason wrote: > > Exactly. Please fix symlinks so that if you live only on Unix you get seamless > support. If you work back and forth between Windows and Unix then you probably > just don't use symlinks, so it won't be a problem for you! > To All: Just to clarify, what are the

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks (was Re: xkcd on git)

Eric Rubin-Smith wrote: > > (1) Default allow-symlinks to true > (2) Fix bug in which the allow-symlinks setting is not honored while > opening a repository > Please try the latest Fossil trunk and let us know if that fixes all the issues you were seeing. -- Joe Mistachkin

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks (was Re: xkcd on git)

On Nov 3, 2015, at 2:51 PM, Joe Mistachkin wrote: > > Please try the latest Fossil trunk and let us know if that fixes all the > issues you were seeing. Version c985d905c6 still fails the test case I posted here yesterday:

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks (was Re: xkcd on git)

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Joe Mistachkin wrote: > > Eric Rubin-Smith wrote: > > > > (1) Default allow-symlinks to true > > (2) Fix bug in which the allow-symlinks setting is not honored while > > opening a repository > > > > Please try the latest Fossil trunk and let

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks (was Re: xkcd on git)

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Joe Mistachkin wrote: > > Eric Rubin-Smith wrote: > > > > (2) Fix bug in which the allow-symlinks setting is not honored while > > opening a repository > > > > Did the following changes (a while back) not address this? > >

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks (was Re: xkcd on git)

Eric Rubin-Smith wrote: > > (2) Fix bug in which the allow-symlinks setting is not honored while > opening a repository > Did the following changes (a while back) not address this? https://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/vinfo/010451e7a5fe116a?sbs=0 If not, in what way are they not adequate?

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks (was Re: xkcd on git)

Eric Rubin-Smith wrote: > > Version [aa92270fe9] seems to have regressed the case of opening a repository with a > .fossil-checkout/allow-symlinks file set to 'on'. See the transcript below. Note > that I had created the repository earlier (I assume this does not matter for the > purposes of

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks (was Re: xkcd on git)

I also find symlinks useful for similar reasons - although I do not use nested repos, so my usage is simpler. It does become a problem when I work with someone who uses Windows and can see that is harder to fix. Would it not be possible for Fossil to detect whether the user can create symlinks

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks (was Re: xkcd on git)

> - Symlinks. Now we're getting into file system specifics. Some users > may want to track them because they find them useful. What about users > that find FIFOs or block devices or character device useful? Should > fossil attempt to save enough information to recreate them? > Support for FIFOs

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks

Fossil version 1.34 has been tagged and binaries are now available on the website (except for OpenBSD, which I cannot build at the moment because devio.us is down, but probably anybody who uses OpenBSD can run "./configure; make" against the tarball.) So now would be a good time to hack away at a

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks (was Re: xkcd on git)

On Nov 2, 2015 9:32 AM, "Eric Rubin-Smith" wrote: > > My problem is not the decision itself, but that, in terms of how fossil should behave, it's a philosophical question. Those have no right/wrong answer, and i dislike seeing software pretend to know the answer to such

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks (was Re: xkcd on git)

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Eric Rubin-Smith wrote: > the user when trying to move a tarball from one OS to another. In other > words, I believe that you perceive a dichotomy that is false (between (a) > not implementing symlinks at all and (b) implementing them while

[fossil-users] symlinks (was Re: xkcd on git)

> My problem is not the decision itself, but that, in terms of how fossil >>> should behave, it's a philosophical question. Those have no right/wrong >>> answer, and i dislike seeing software pretend to know the answer to such >>> questions. >>> >> >> Isn't that essentially confirming my point?

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks (was Re: xkcd on git)

On 11/2/15, Ron W wrote: > On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:16 PM, bch wrote: >> >> Philosophically, I think of links as build artifacts, which are rarely >> stored in an scm. I do avoid them as much as possible, but I've >> occasionally wondered: does anybody

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks (was Re: xkcd on git)

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:16 PM, bch wrote: > > Philosophically, I think of links as build artifacts, which are rarely > stored in an scm. I do avoid them as much as possible, but I've > occasionally wondered: does anybody manage the links as the build artifacts > of a

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks (was Re: xkcd on git)

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 6:00 PM, bch wrote: > > After I posted this, I thought a Makefile (still to manage actual > symlinks) would be an improvement over a shell script; you're punting > on symlinks completely (using VPATH). How has VPATH (or the previous > shell script)

[fossil-users] Symlinks issue, replacing a symlink with a directory breaks fossil update

(I posted this initially to the symlinks appear as regular files thread, reposting as new thread). Someone reported to me that there are problems when a symlink is replaced with a directory or vice versa. Here is the script that he generated to illustrate the issue: ## Create repo and initial

[fossil-users] symlinks

Any plan to support symlinks any time soon? ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks

On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Eric Rubin-Smith eas@gmail.com wrote: Any plan to support symlinks any time soon? ??? [stephan@host:~]$ f help set | grep -C3 sym access-log If enabled, record successful and failed login attempts in the accesslog table.

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks

On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Eric Rubin-Smith eas@gmail.com wrote: Any plan to support symlinks any time soon? ??? [stephan@host:~]$ f help set | grep -C3 sym access-log If enabled, record

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks

On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Eric Rubin-Smith eas@gmail.com wrote: D'oh. I had searched the forum + google and found threads in which the devs described why there was no support, and then tested to see if there was support by just checking in a symlink (which didn't work by

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks

On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote: Not noise. This is signal that means we need to improve the documentation @Eric: feel free to suggest docs and where you think they belong. Tomorrow's a half-day for me, so i could get them in tomorrow evening if you're

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks

On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote: D'oh. I had searched the forum + google and found threads in which the devs described why there was no support, and then tested to see if there was support by just checking in a symlink (which didn't work by default). So I

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks

On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Scott Robison sc...@casaderobison.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote: D'oh. I had searched the forum + google and found threads in which the devs described why there was no support, and then tested to see if there

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks

On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Eric Rubin-Smith eas@gmail.com wrote: D'oh. I had searched the forum + google and found threads in which the devs described why there was no support, and then tested to see if there was support by just checking in a symlink (which didn't work by default).

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks

On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote: On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Scott Robison sc...@casaderobison.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote: D'oh. I had searched the forum + google and found threads in which

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks

On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote: On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Scott Robison sc...@casaderobison.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote: D'oh. I had searched the forum + google and found threads in which the

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks

On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Scott Robison sc...@casaderobison.com wrote: That was my idea (unless mentioning it motivated a dev to do it and commit in 15 minutes or less, as often seems to happen around here). :) Oh, Scott, have you not learned? You haven't offered us any cookies yet ;).

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks

On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Scott Robison sc...@casaderobison.com wrote: That was my idea (unless mentioning it motivated a dev to do it and commit in 15 minutes or less, as often seems to happen around here). :) It would be nice. I used to be one of the people, here, trying to

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks

On 8/28/2014 09:23, Scott Robison wrote: Would there be any interest in adding symlink support to Windows (where available [Vista later], leaving the text file approach where it is not)? While Windows Vista+ technically can make symlinks on NTFS, it has restrictions that make it unworkable

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks

On 28.08.2014 20:01, Warren Young wrote: 3. If your program is running as a Windows service (which Fossil can't do yet, but may one day be able to) it can't call this function at all, regardless of permission. Only programs running under the interactive desktop can create symlinks. Fossil can

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks

On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Warren Young war...@etr-usa.com wrote: While Windows Vista+ technically can make symlinks on NTFS, it has restrictions that make it unworkable for Fossil: 1. If you aren't running as a member of the Administrators group, you cannot create symlinks, at all,

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks

On 8/28/2014 13:34, Thomas Schnurrenberger wrote: Fossil can be run as a Windows service. Thanks for the tip! Please take a look at the 'winsrv' command. Alas, I do not keep a native Windows binary of fossil.exe on my Windows boxes. As you can guess from my prior message, I only run

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks

On 8/28/2014 14:32, Ron W wrote: On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Warren Young war...@etr-usa.com mailto:war...@etr-usa.com wrote: 2. If you *are* running as an Administrator user, you can't create symlinks from a process that isn't Run as Administrator. If issue #1 is resolved in a

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks

On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Warren Young war...@etr-usa.com wrote: On 8/28/2014 14:32, Ron W wrote: I wonder if it would make sense for Fossil to spawn a separate program to create symlinks. You'd need a Windows equivalent of setuid root. I imagine if such a thing exists, it

Re: [fossil-users] symlinks to directories are traversed by fossil extras?

Matt, There's symlinks branch that does what you want http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/timeline?r=symlinks Though I haven't merged the latest Fossil changes into it yet. Related discussion: http://www.mail-archive.com/fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org/msg03402.html -- Dmitry Chestnykh On

[fossil-users] symlinks to directories are traversed by fossil extras?

What is the plan for handling symlinks for fossil? My preference would be for fossil to treat links as a file. Storing the pointer would be great. Just ignoring links would also be fine by me. But actually traversing the links is not a good idea IMHO and is a real fossil killer. It is also not