Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Even though some platforms may lack symbolic links, where they are >> supported, they have a clear and defined meaning and that is what Git >> tracks as contents: where the link points at. >> >> So we would want our "git diff" to tell us, even if you moved without >> content modification the symbolic link target that lives somewhere on your >> filesystem but is outside the control of Git, and updated a symbolic link >> that is tracked by Git to point to a new location, that you updated the >> link. On the other hand, if you did not update a tracked symbolic link, >> even if the location the link points at that may or may not be under the >> control of Git, we do not want "git diff" to show anything. As far as that >> link is concerned, nothing has changed. >> >> Changing this would not be a fix; it would be butchering. > > That's a good default. But git should allow me to say "diff the files > that symlinks point to". Link target is content from git perspective, > not from user perspective. > > So instead changing the default behavior specifically for git-grep as > Pang did, I think adding --follow-symlinks option, that could be > passed to grep or any of diff family, would be a better approach. Stop and think what "git diff --follow-symlinks v1.3.0 v1.7.0" should do when these versions record a symbolic link, "from user perspective", if the link points outside the tracked contents. Naturally, the users would expect that the comparison is made between the contents of the file back when v1.3.0 was tagged and the contents of the file (which may or may not be the same path depending on the target of that symbolic link) back when v1.7.0 was tagged. But that is something that the user is *NOT* tracking with the system, and hence something we cannot give the right answer. Your "--follow-symlinks" option only encourages the *wrong* perception on the users' side, without supporting what it appears to promise to the users. Why could it be an improvement? Compared to that, limiting the optional support for following symlinks only in "--no-index" case, where the user explicitly asks us to look at the data that is not managed by Git at all, makes more sense. At the design level, I wouldn't be fundamentally opposed to a change to add an optional "follow the symlink" feature only when "--no-index" is asked for. I didn't look at the posted patch, so I do not know if it adds an optional following or unconditionally makes us follow symbolic links, or if the patch sensibly implements the feature, though. That is a separate issue. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html