Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Marius Storm-Olsen wrote: > >> Robin Rosenberg said the following on 02.09.2007 22:27: >> > s?ndag 02 september 2007 skrev Marius Storm-Olsen: >> > > (Also, since Windows doesn't really handle symlinks, it's fine that >> > > stat just uses lstat) >> > >> > It does now: See >> > http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa363866.aspx >> >> Yeah, I know about Vista's improved support for symbolic >> links. However, I think we can let that lay for a while, until we >> decide to make Git generate proper symlinks on Vista. I don't see >> it as a 1st priority at the moment, and we can always add the >> needed functionality in a separate stat() function later. > > ... and force everybody to upgrade to Vista, Nonsense. Supporting a feature is different from requiring a feature. > thereby working for Microsoft for free? You _know_ that I will > oppose that change. If Microsoft decides to shoot their users less in the foot than previously, I don't think that we should take over the gun. However, if the symbolic link semantics hinted at elsewhere indeed are as broken as claimed and/or documented, the actual usefulness of symbolic links seems so limited that we would not be doing their users a favor by supporting relative symlinks. And absolute links frankly have very little place in a _work_ directory (and git does not currently keep track of enough things in order to make it useful as a filesystem snapshot system). I would like to see actual test results to get a confirmation of whether indeed relative symlinks are as broken under Vista as rumored. If they are, it seems quite pointless supporting any symlinks under Windows at the moment. Until I see actual test results, I would give Microsoft the benefit of doubt. -- David Kastrup - 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
