On Tue, 2015-05-12 at 13:07 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > 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? Because maybe sub/link was actually a link to ../../nextlink. Or maybe sub/link was actually a link to ../outlink, and ../outlink was a link to ../nextlink. But I think I'm OK with implementing your proposed solution[1] of categorizing all of the possible cases. [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/msg250893.html xmqqd225fsw8.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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