Hi,
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Alex Riesen wrote:
> 2009/6/9 Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > Alex Riesen schrieb:
> >> 2009/6/8 Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx>:
> >>> On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, Alex Riesen wrote:
> >>>> NOT TESTED. Can't. My Windows broke again. Not even compile-tested.
> >>> Yes, that is pretty easy to see as you first used pold/pnew and then
> >>> src/dst.
> >>
> >> Yep.
> >>
> >>> I minimally fixed up your patch (it now uses strbuf), and added a
> >>> test-case.
> >>>
> >>> This test-case is actually crucial: it shows that your patch is not
> >>> enough: the culprit is this code in builtin-mv.c:167--168:
> >>>
> >>> else if (lstat(dst, &st) == 0) {
> >>> bad = "destination exists";
> >>
> >> Ah, thanks. Missed that completely.
> >
> > That's the reason why I think any work-around for this problem is not
> > worth it.
>
> What is the lstat is for, anyway?
It is to avoid overwriting existing files.
> > If you want to be cross-platfrom, make up your mind about file names
> > in advance.
>
> I suspect it is the other way around. Some platforms just hate the idea
> of being ported to. Or its designers have poor imagination and never
> though about the fact that other platforms exist.
Actually, think about it as a brilliant business plan: make developers be
stuck with developing for your platform, then they lack the time to take
care of other platforms.
The bigger question with the patch is if the lstat() call can tell us
if this is the same file (really the same, not just a hardlink (= same
contents)).
Ciao,
Dscho