Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: >> In the longer term, we would inevitably face "when should one use >> nonrelative and when should one use absolute?" and we would eventually >> have to answer it. It may turn out that many current users of >> "absolute" are better off using "nonrelative", but I suspect we won't >> get rid of "absolute" completely, because one of the reasons it avoids >> symlinks at great lengths is so that it can check the containment >> relationships between paths reliably (e.g. "is this path outside the >> repository, in which case we should refuse to add it to the index, and >> we use --no-index without being asked when running "diff""). >> >> But using "absolute" for containment comparison is one thing. Storing >> the result of "absolute" is quite another. > > The easy way would be to add an option to make_absolute_path(), say > "resolve_symlinks". I am afraid that it does not solve anything. Be they two separate functions, or a one function that has two different semantics depending on an option, the API documentation needs to answer the "when should I use one and when should I use the other" question. And the hard part is figuring out which of the current "absolute" callers need to be fixed in a way similar to how Daniel fixed git-clone, and which of them stay the same. Perhaps all of the "chdir then getpwd" patterns need to be looked at and some of them need to be restructured to honor $PWD better. I dunno. -- 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
