Eric D <eric.decosta@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > The only thing that is somewhat gnawing at me is that just because the > remote worktree is mounted via SMB is no guarantee that fsmonitor will > work correctly. In many (most?) cases it should, but who knows what > support the filer server has. > > I think we should allow the user to override regardless - as you said > let the user try it. But, conservatively, just because SMB is there > may not be enough to let the monitor start without the explicit user > override. Being able to report on which protocol is being used could > provide useful diagnostics, but that's about it. I do not think anybody minds if the initial/first step would be to add "option to allow" and do nothing else. No "are we talking SMB?" check, and just a simple "by default we refuse going remote, but since the user has an explicit opt-in configuration set, we allow". That is sufficient to let people gain experience using fsmonitor on Windows mounting from various filer implementations. And then the next step, in one or two major releases down the road, may try to check what kind of filer we are on and see if it is one of the "good" ones to flip the default selectively.
