Re: Not going beyond symbolic links
- From
- david@lang.hm <david@lang.hm>
- Date
- Aug 5, 2008, 03:04 UTC
- Message-ID
- <alpine.DEB.1.10.0808042003200.29250@asgard.lang.hm>
- In-Reply-To
- <7v3alk17yh.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Mon, 4 Aug 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 18 quoted lines
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes: > >> ... Because this is definitely not a black-and-white "one behavior is >> wrong and one behavior is right". > > I wish I could agree with you that this is a feature, but 16a4c61 > (read-tree -m -u: avoid getting confused by intermediate symlinks., > 2007-05-10) and 64cab59 (apply: do not get confused by symlinks in the > middle, 2007-05-11) came from real world breakage cases and the root cause > was that we were too lenient to allow such a "feature" that pretends the > symlink not to be there. > > Right now, we are being careful only while branch switching and patch > application, but the codepaths that add directly to the index (add and > update-index) are not fixed (or "still has the feature"). > > I do not see a clean way to keep such a "feature" without hurting users > who suffered the bugs these two commits from May 2007 fixed.
config option?
I think a command line is too much work for too little value, but if the check could be ignored based on a config option without costing too much it may be reasonable.
David Lang