I don't know if it's just me, or if there's a school of thought regarding this, but if this is a case of maintaining symlinks to publish as part of a distribution, I usually relegate their management to a script that will be part of a release generation process (with "repository != release" in mind). Are the problematic uses of symlinks different from that? On Apr 7, 2015 11:14 PM, "Joe Mistachkin" <sql...@mistachkin.com> wrote:
> > Andy Goth wrote: > > > > My andygoth-versioned-open branch (just checked in) addresses this > > problem and seems to fix the symlink issue. However, the Fossil coding > > style is rather alien to me, particularly the way it leaks memory on > > purpose, so the way I'm doing things may not be the best. Please have a > > look, and feel free to ask questions and make suggestions and further > > changes. > > > > I've made some tweaks on the branch. Here are the highlights: > > 1. By changing the return code checking for historical_version_of_file(), > which apparently returns greater than zero on success. > > 2. Set noWarn based on the historical version of that file, if it exists. > > 3. Unrelated: Removed superfluous slash in the ".fossil-settings" path > used by print_setting(). > > -- > Joe Mistachkin > > _______________________________________________ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users >
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
