From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make Git accept absolute path names for files within the work tree Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 02:17:40 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: References: <3665a1a00712021652tbdfe9d1tdc4575d225bfed36@mail.gmail.com> <20071203024916.GA11003@coredump.intra.peff.net> <200712030755.37038.robin.rosenberg@dewire.com> <200712032153.31322.robin.rosenberg.lists@dewire.com> <20071204014326.GA21358@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Robin Rosenberg , Junio C Hamano , Anatol Pomozov , git@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Dec 04 03:18:48 2007 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 1IzNMz-0003eD-ML for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 03:18:46 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751257AbXLDCSI (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Dec 2007 21:18:08 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751250AbXLDCSH (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Dec 2007 21:18:07 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:54900 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751239AbXLDCSG (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Dec 2007 21:18:06 -0500 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 04 Dec 2007 02:18:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (EHLO openvpn-client) [138.251.11.103] by mail.gmx.net (mp038) with SMTP; 04 Dec 2007 03:18:04 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18YIdBYa2sYkRMnmDBQZNdEwulY8UfWe8vFBR7t7C zzRrUvltqdYF1m X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: <20071204014326.GA21358@coredump.intra.peff.net> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Mon, 3 Dec 2007, Jeff King wrote: > On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 09:53:30PM +0100, Robin Rosenberg wrote: > > > code did not pass). Like Linus, this code does not resolve symlinks, > > but I forgot to state that it is by design. It solves my problem and > > By design meaning "I didn't feel like implemening it because I do not > personally care" or "I have some reason not to resolve symlinks"? IMHO those symlinks would be a nice thing in some corner cases, but penalise the common case. So I tend to believe the latter. (See also Linus' message why he talks about his preference for the die() code path.) Ciao, Dscho