I'm doing my best here to ignore the ad hominem and focus on the problem and
solution.
On 11/7/13 11:32 AM, Dirk wrote:
> What you do: You ask me /several/ times what I wan't to do. You even claim that
> I failed to explain my problem.
> (Surely that doesn't stop you from hi-jacking this thread with a self-loving
> and off-topic rant about you using the commandline).
>
> Answer:
> Look at the subject of this thread. It says "follow symlinks", also, I wrote
> multiple times that i want to follow symbolic links. With subversion. I want to
> follow symbolic links with subversion. I want subversion to follow symbolic
> links. I don't want it to behave differently so you can't use it to backup your
> home directory anymore. No. I am just asking for a (optional) option at compile
> (or run-) time. So that subversion offers a /choice/ to me. So I can follow
> symbolic links with it. Follow symbolic links. Follow symlinks. Symlinks.
> Follow them. Please. Thank you.
>
> Good enough for you? Do you understand what I am talking about /now/? Or were
> you just trying to chill this thread with a pointless response?
No it's not good enough. You present a solution to a problem you're having.
You do not explain the problem. You simply repeat over and over what your
proposed solution is.
If your problem is what I think it is then we can solve the problem without the
need for any configuration option to change the behavior. Since the ability to
store symlinks in the repository doesn't conflict with the ability to follow
symlinks (in most cases) as I was showing using 1.6.x.
If your problem is something different then I want to understand it so we can
develop a proper solution.
As it is you seem unwilling to discuss the problem and the solution with people
who might be willing to go to the effort to implement a solution. That makes
it very hard to proceed with a discussion. Without that discussion given the
level of work such a change would require you're unlikely to find anyone
willing to undertake the effort. You are of course welcome to implement your
own patch that does what you want and submit it to this list.
Developing your proposed solution is not as simple as you seem to think it is.
What happens when you add a file that's a symlink? Presumably you want it to
add the content to the repo that the symlink points to and then leave the
symlink in place. What happens when you update? Presumably you want to
preserve the symlink.
Implementing that would be possible, but it's not trivial to do due to the way
the working copy works at current. Specifically the design to apply changes in
an atomic and recoverable fashion.
I wish you the best of luck with your problem. I won't be responding further if
you simply want to ignore the questions I'm asking and toss insults my way.
Received on 2013-11-07 22:05:58 CET