On Jan 11, 2008, at 8:30 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Apparently so. By Junio's definition, HFS+ is not a sane filesystem, and as git grows more popular with OS X users, this issue is going to crop up more frequently.It's not "my" definition, but you asked the reason and I gave the answer. We can close this issue of "is HFS+ sane" now. HFS+ is insane, period. And as Linus said, you cannot forgive its insanity using the historical baggage argument, like MS-DOS.
Fair enough, though I believe OS X has a good reason, namely it's an OS designed for regular users rather than servers or programmers. Case- sensitivity would confuse my mother.
HOWEVER. It is a totally different issue if we want to refuse supporting insane filesystems. And the answer is no. It was not my intention to say that we do not intend to support them, when I explained the reason why the things are as they are, which was the original question by you.
Ok. I wasn't implying anything with that phrase there, I was just trying to reiterate that HFS+ is case-insensitive and emphasize that this issue will become more relevant as time goes by.
See Robin's proposal to let us translate random names we get back from readdir() from the filesystem using an additional look-up table in the index extension section that stores mapping from canonicalized form to the form that the user registered to the index. I think that is a sane approach to tackle this issue on insane filesystems like HFS+.
If I knew what the index extension section was, perhaps I would think that's a good idea ;) I have yet to dive into the gory details of how this stuff works.
-- Kevin Ballard http://kevin.sb.org kevin@xxxxxx http://www.tildesoft.com
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>
