Re: [PATCH]: Check for symlinks only if HAVE_SYMLINK defined.

Ivan Zhakov <chemodax@gmail.com> writes:

> On 10/24/05, Philip Martin <philip@codematters.co.uk> wrote:
>> Ivan Zhakov <chemodax@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> >> perhaps the other HAVE_SYMLINK bits could be removed? I think it's
>> >> better to have the #ifdef code in one place if possible.
>> > May be, but don't use wc_speciall variable unless HAVE_SYMLINK defined
>> > clearer for me.
>>
>> I think HAVE_SYMLINK is a hack that should be kept as small as
>> possible, it's currently spread out over 4 places in the function.
>>
>> Perhaps the HAVE_SYMLINK should be moved inside svn_wc__get_special,
>> so that windows always returns false? That would speed up all the
>> other operations as well as status.
> I was thinking about it. Because I am not wc expert I was fear do
> it, but if you consider this safe it would be better. (In my company
> I have done it in your way)

Are you referring to my svn_wc__get_special suggestion? I think it's
the best solution, I don't understand why status should be different
from the other operations.

-- 
Philip Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org