David Turner <dturner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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. Then the output would have said "symlink ../../nextlink" and you can tell these two cases apart, no? Same for the other case. > But I think I'm OK with implementing your proposed solution[1] of > categorizing all of the possible cases. I think that is the cleanest I can come up with offhand, and would give the easiest input to scripters. At least I think so for now, but others may have even better ideas ;-) Thanks. -- 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