On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Stephan Beal <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Matt Welland <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> BTW, to some extent it is ok for fossil to be opinionated software that >> strives to dictate how to do your work. However take that model very far >> and you quickly alienate people. Given that perspective, why would fossil >> care if someone chooses to commit a symlink that points outside their repo? >> Give that user some credit, presumably he or she has a good reason for >> doing what they are doing. >> > > 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? Fossil merely stores the pointer. It need not waste time analysing the link to make a judgement call in any way. Just store it and move on. The default behaviour I'd like to see is: fast: one readlink call, done! non-judgemental: the link can point wherever you want, fossil need not even check simple: store linkname as filename, result from readlink as file content, and a flag, i.e. symlink > > -- > ----- stephan beal > http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ > http://gplus.to/sgbeal > "Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of > those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do." -- Bigby Wolf > > _______________________________________________ > fossil-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users > >
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
