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

On 10/24/05, Philip Martin <philip@codematters.co.uk> wrote:
> 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.
Yes, I'm about your suggestion.
Because svn_wc__get_special should return value of svn:special
property, so it not true always return false. May be I am wrong.

--
Ivan Zhakov