David Turner <dturner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> * I am not sure if HEAD:link that points at HEAD:link should be
>> reported as "missing". It may be better to report the original
>> without any dereferencing just like a link that points at outside
>> the tree? i.e. "symlink 4 LF link".
>
> Unfortunately, a symlink loop might include relative symlinks
> (e.g. ../a). If we return a relative symlink, the user will
> not be able to distinguish it from a non-loop, out-of-tree symlink. So
> I think we may not return symlink 4 LF ../a for these cases.
I do not follow. Let's start from a shared example.
HEAD:sub/link is a symbolic link whose value is ../nextlink
HEAD:nextlink is a symbolic link whose value is sub/link
That's a loop. Now, I think what I am sugesting is
$ git cat-file --batch-check --follow-symlinks <<\EOF
HEAD:sub/link
HEAD:nextlink
EOF
symlink ../nextlink
symlink sub/link
If you asked about sub/link and then got ../nextlink back, then
isn't it clear for the reading script that it is about nextlink
at the top-level? Why can't it tell it from out-of-tree link?
--
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