On Jan 28, 2011, at 12:43 , Stephan Beal wrote: > i, for one, am against adding symlinks support for exactly these types of > reasons. Too many questions regarding their portable use cannot be answered > (and some of them are purely philosophical rather than technical, e.g. > whether or not to allow links outside the repo).
The proposal in this thread contains pretty nice solutions... > i've been a die-hard Unix user since well over 10 years, i don't own a copy > of Windows or Mac or any other non-Unix-like system (don't tell me Mac is > Unix-like!) Any good basis for that? After using Linux since nineties I bought an Apple computer just to get a well supported Unix-like system. After 1.5 year I'm still happy with that choice... > , and i use symlinks on a daily basis. Even so, i strongly feel > that trying to version control symlinks is an exercise in futility, pain, > and suffering, and a great source of bugs and incompatibilities. It cannot > work transparently across platforms, period Working on all platforms actually supporting them is good enough, period. > , and there are good reasons why > so few source control systems attempt to version them. Like, Git, Mercurial and Subversion are still too few? Oh, you're right, Darcs and CVS really don't version symlinks. And Fossil, for now... Kind regards, Remigiusz Modrzejewski _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
