On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Scott Robison <sc...@casaderobison.com> wrote:

> If we don't support it, Fossil potentially looks bad to someone for not
> creating what appear to be ordinary file names. If we do support it, Fossil
> potentially looks bad for creating files or directories that other processes
> can't interact with normally.
> I wouldn't mind taking a stab at it if enough people think it is worthwhile,
> but I'm not sure it is worthwhile.

BTW, tar has the same problem when unpacking in windows archives
created on other OSes.  None of the tars that I happened to use in the
years did anything special with these files: they cannot be created in
the normal way, so tar signals an error and that's it.

(Yes, aux.c happens to be a quite common file name :)
fossil-users mailing list

Reply via email to