2018-06-04 8:26 GMT+02:00 Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org>: > What happens when I do something like this > > <fileset dir="..." followsymlinks="false"> > <ownedby owner="me" followsymlinks="true"/> > </fileset> > > I believe - but haven't tested it - that for symlinks <ownedby> is never > going to be invoked at all as DirectoryScanner will skip the symlink so > the attribute's value on ownedby is irrelevant. If I'm correct we should > probably document it somewhere. > > Of course the same is true for the existing <symlink> selector, so this > is a more general task.
Stefan is right -- "followsymlinks" for the fileset should have been called "skipsymlinks" or something like that. What's worse, the way things are now, there is a risk for confusion. I'd like add "skipsymlinks" and change "followsymlinks" for the fileset so that a fileset behaves as follows: none of the attributes set (default): skipsymlinks=false, followsymlinks=true (for consistency -- breaks BWC); one ore both attributes set: followsymlinks=true, skipsymlinks not set => warn, followsymlinks=false and skipsymlinks=false for BWC; followsymlinks=false, skipsymlinks not set => warn and skipsymlinks=true for BWC; skipsymlinks=false, followsymlinks set => new semantics for followsymlinks; skipsymlinks=false, followsymlinks not set => new semantics, followsymlinks=true for consistency; skipsymlinks=true => followsymlinks not set -- ditto, else a warning about useless attribute? What do you think? Gintas
