Re: Not going beyond symbolic links

[david@lang.hm]

On Mon, 4 Aug 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:
>
>> ... Because this is definitely not a black-and-white "one behavior is
>> wrong and one behavior is right".
>
> I wish I could agree with you that this is a feature, but 16a4c61
> (read-tree -m -u: avoid getting confused by intermediate symlinks.,
> 2007-05-10) and 64cab59 (apply: do not get confused by symlinks in the
> middle, 2007-05-11) came from real world breakage cases and the root cause
> was that we were too lenient to allow such a "feature" that pretends the
> symlink not to be there.
>
> Right now, we are being careful only while branch switching and patch
> application, but the codepaths that add directly to the index (add and
> update-index) are not fixed (or "still has the feature").
>
> I do not see a clean way to keep such a "feature" without hurting users
> who suffered the bugs these two commits from May 2007 fixed.

config option?

I think a command line is too much work for too little value, but if the 
check could be ignored based on a config option without costing too much 
it may be reasonable.

David Lang