On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 07:21, Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote on Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 07:03:39 -0400:
>> 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?
I think that I was just eaten by a grue.
Not sure what you mean here. Twisty passages, and all that.
Received on 2011-10-11 13:48:14 CEST