Hi, On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Robin Rosenberg wrote: > onsdag 28 februari 2007 01:07 skrev Johannes Schindelin: > > > Your solution would fall short if one of the two files is changed. > > Since they are supposed to be symlinks, the application expects them > > to be identical, and weird sh*t happens. > > As will it when the file contain something completly different than > expected. My points are these: - If your project depends on symlinks, and you are on a system that does not do symlinks, you're screwed. However, you might want to checkout the project nevertheless. - If you have a symlink, and your system does not do symlinks, you want the information where the symlink points to, at least _somewhere_. Without digging deep into Git internals. - If you have a symlink, and your system ..., you want it to fail _early_. The last point is reaaaaally important. There is a reason why we have compiler errors, instead of just blindly compiling it, and if that particular code path is triggered, explode in the face of the user. So, all I would like to do on top of Johannes' patch is to add a _big_ _fat_ warning whenever Git realizes it has to substitute a file for a link, but I DON'T WANT THE BLOODY FILE TO BE COPIED. Ciao, Dscho - 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