Greg Stein wrote on Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 07:03:39 -0400:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 06:19, Julian Foad <julian.foad_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> >...
> > I haven't thought through how this would affect the future of the
> > 'svn:special' property. Were there any plans to make 'svn:special'
> > describe special files other than symlinks (devices, pipes, etc.)?
>
> Somebody may have thought about that in the past, and they should be
> tarred and feathered. svn:special is an awful hack :-(
>
> Look at it this way: we should have a symlink kind (in svn_kind_t) as
> a first-order value, and then we separately worry about how to marshal
> that kind around and/or represent it within our
> classic/backwards-compat system (read: svn:special). Our current
> interfaces should be talking about symlinks. Under the covers, we do
> "funny stuff" for that kind of node.
>
So, taking your line of thought further, in 2.0 svn:special could become
as much of an implementation detail as the "repository-normal form" detail
of svn:eol-style?
> >...
>
> Cheers,
> -g
Received on 2011-10-11 13:21:56 CEST