On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Eric Rubin-Smith <[email protected]> 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 >> fossil attempt to save enough information to recreate them? >> > > Support for FIFOs and block devices is a separate discussion. My defense > of symlink support does not force me to also defend FIFO and block device > support. > +1 - Extended attributes. Many file systems now have extended attributes. >> Should Mac users complain because fossil doesn't support HFS+ extended >> attributes or resource forks? >> > > They may do so if they think it's reasonable, and be subject to all the > usual considerations around developers' time and attention, etc. But > again, for the purposes of arguing whether good symlink support is > warranted, that is a separate topic. > +1 > > > I think fossil can support the permissions level. Anything further > > down in the previous list should be part of the project's build cycle. > > My biggest complaint about this discussion is that some folks seem to be > coming at it like fossil is the first tool to confront this issue. It > isn't. There are real examples of programs in the wild (SCMs, no less!) > that have solved it in ways that are more coherent, more user-friendly, and > just as easy to implement as what fossil already has. For Git, our > poster-child for difficult tools, this is just a total non-issue. > +1 > Fossil already sort-of attempts to do what Git does, it just has some bugs > and incorrect default config values. So the distance to fixing Fossil is > quite small. But closing the gap (and keeping it closed) is much harder > when a vocal subset of the community argues that supporting symlinks is > impossible or ill-advised (it is neither, by my lights). > I think the Mark Twain quote; “I've lived through some terrible things in my life, some of which actually happened.” applies here. The objections to better symlink support are based on imaginings that may or may not ever eventuate. There is a simple bottom line that might help. If the developers of fossil wish to eliminate a large swath of current and potential users then leave symlink support as is or remove it entirely. Understand that this support is not really optional for many of us. For me (and I think for others) this is not a philosophical discussion. This is a pragmatic discussion. > Eric > > _______________________________________________ > 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
