Hi, On 2015-11-05 at 08:18 CET Stephan Beal <sgb...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 7:59 PM, David Mason <dma...@ryerson.ca> wrote: > >> It's simple: a symlink is a filesystem artifact and should be reflected as >> such in the repository. It should not be followed; if foo is a symlink and >> I say "fs add foo/bar" it should probably give an error. (This might >> surprise people the first time, but it's easy to explain - foo/bar isn't >> part of the repo, regardless of where foo points.) > >But it's not quite that simple, philosophically speaking: we expect Fossil >to extract _exactly_ what we put in it, and that's not portably possible >when it comes to symlinks. As soon as someone checks out your repo on a >non-Unix system, fossil is creating output which you did not put in fossil. >That's a tremendous psychological/philosophical hurdle for me. i'd rather >live without symlinks than know that my repos check out differently >depending on the platform. Thank God there's no DOS port of fossil, or we would end with 8.3 filenames... ;-) Symlinks are sometimes crucial _on_ _unix_, and not supporting them, only because of the existence of Windows port, would be very bad choice. For me it would be better to not have Windows port than symlinks support. Thankfully for others, I'm not a developer ;-) -- Greetings Rafal Bisingier _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
