On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 10:16:21PM +0100, Ketil Malde wrote: > > What I want is for darcs to ignore that those are symbolic links, and > > to treat the file contents as if they were hard links or copies, at > > least as an optional behavior. This also seems to be the behavior of > > least surprise, and it is the way things used to be. > > What would happen if both the symlink and its target is under version > control. Do you record and apply the same change twice?
This rarely happens, but in case it does, the same change is recorded twice (in two different patches). > If you want symlinks, isn't it easiest to have a (version-controlled) > script set them up? The script (actually, a Makefile) is version-controlled. During normal work I do not care about that file as the repository never leaves my computer anyway. When a project (say, a paper) is near completion, however, I want the files that are normally present just via symlinks to be archived in the repo just to ensure that I can still build everything with data in that one repo alone. (The symlink-creating script does not replace a file with a symlink if the target cannot be found.) And I do not want to change the Makefile at this point. IOW, during normal work it is valuable to have symlinks (so that changes I make to the file affect the link's target); but towards the end when it is unlikely that the file's contents change any more, this becomes a problem if darcs suddenly thinks the file no longer belongs into the repo. (In the final stages when corrections concern typos and other minor things mostly, I am not likely to pay a lot of attention to the individual changes proposed by darcs, and am rather likely to `record -a`; effectively, I then loose the contents of the symlinked file.) Thanks for your comments, Albert. _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list darcs-users@darcs.net http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
