> On Dec. 16, 2016, 10:22 a.m., Alex Clemmer wrote:
> > While not ideal, in the event that we were wrong about whether this symlink 
> > is required, it seems likely that it would at least make visible, obvious 
> > errors, instead of subtle ones. But, can we please create an issue to track 
> > our divestment from symlinks here, and tag it with the `microsoft` label so 
> > I can track it on our dashboard?

Note: I don't think this is the right thing to do, but it does show how little 
we actually rely on symlinks (on Windows, and only on Windows).  I'm working on 
a short design doc for removing the need for symlinks on Windows (tests) 
entirely.  In non-test environments, we'll still want symlinks (especially for 
the long-path support).


- Joseph


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/54807/#review159470
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Dec. 15, 2016, 10:43 p.m., Joseph Wu wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/54807/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Dec. 15, 2016, 10:43 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Andrew Schwartzmeyer, Alex Clemmer, and Michael 
> Park.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> This fixes the 500 or so tests that are enabled on Windows builds.
> 
> With the exception of some parts of the agent recovery pathway,
> creating symlinks is not necessary for the agent to function.
> The current set of tests will pass with or without the ability to
> create symlinks.  In the case of the ASF CI, we will never have the
> ability to create symlinks on Windows.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/slave/paths.cpp 8792cee43d94e7b0bbd7b80aebbe501236244621 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/54807/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> .\support\windows-build.bat (Win10)
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Joseph Wu
> 
>

Reply via email to