Michael Haggerty <mhag...@alum.mit.edu> writes:

> But it also changes almost 600 *other* tests from "succeed even in the
> presence of symlinks" to "never tested in the presence of symlinks", and
> I think that is surrendering more ground than necessary.

Ouch.  I did not know have 600+ tests that cares about CEILING.

> I would rather
> see one of the following approaches:
> *If* the official policy is that GIT_CEILING_DIRECTORIES is not reliable
> in the presence of symlinks, then (a) that limitation should be
> mentioned in the documentation; (b) the affected tests should either be
> skipped in the case of symlinked directories or they (alone!) should
> take measures to work around the problem.

What exactly is broken in CEILING?

I somehow thought that Jiang's patch was to make sure any variables
that contain pathnames (and make sure future paths we might grab out
of $(pwd)) are realpath without symlinks early in the test set-up,
and with that arrangement, no symlink gotcha should come into
picture, with or without CEILING.

Perhaps the setting of the CEILING has not been correctly converted
with the patch?

Or is there something fundamentally broken, even if we do not have
any symlinks involved, with CEILING check?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to