[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: [RFC] Add a 'symlink' node kind in svn_node_kind_t or svn_kind_t

From: Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:55:28 +0200

On Tuesday, October 11, 2011 7:47 AM, "Greg Stein" <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.


Consider the following design:

* svn:special is not a user-visible property. (like wcprops/entryprops)

* FS/RA/WC interfaces use enum kind_t { none, dir, file, symlink, unknown }.

* symlinks are marshalled across the wire as plain files with svn:special set.
  (and I'll not open the can of worms of the concrete property name/value that should be used)

I'm asking if that sounds like a logical extension of this RFC. (I'm not saying I particularly like or dislike it; I'm merely putting it on the table.)

> Cheers,
> -g
Received on 2011-10-11 13:56:00 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.