From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: git-svn woes Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 19:41:29 -0800 Message-ID: <7vtz6fgrdi.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <86d4c5e00902271253y50eaef01x8ca837d3a0ed7ef6@mail.gmail.com> <20090228033108.GB28606@dcvr.yhbt.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Nicolas Pitre , git@vger.kernel.org, Deskin Miller To: Eric Wong X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Feb 28 04:43:06 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LdG6T-0005A9-TV for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 04:43:06 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753151AbZB1Dlk (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Feb 2009 22:41:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753172AbZB1Dlj (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Feb 2009 22:41:39 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:45058 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752912AbZB1Dli (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Feb 2009 22:41:38 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63CA51E60; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 22:41:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [68.225.240.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A399D1E5B; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 22:41:30 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20090228033108.GB28606@dcvr.yhbt.net> (Eric Wong's message of "Fri, 27 Feb 2009 19:31:08 -0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: B28C6D8E-0549-11DE-8E98-CBE7E3B37BAC-77302942!a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Eric Wong writes: > I've been poking around at this for a bit, I am pretty confused > by this, too. It's been a rough week, so I could be missing > something obvious... > > Junio: since 1.6.2 might be out the door before we have time to resolve > this, I'm leaning towards disabling the broken-symlink-workaround by > default for the release. It seems far more people are negatively > affected by the attempted fix around this rare problem than helped. I agree that unfortunately is the message I am getting from the list ever since the feature was introduced.