On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Eric Rubin-Smith <eas....@gmail.com> wrote: > My biggest complaint about this discussion is that some folks seem to be > coming at it like fossil is the first tool to confront this issue.
I interpret the discussion as a more philosophical one. Should symlinks be part of a project's contents maintained by an SCM? Or should symlinks be maintained by makefiles and scripts in the project? It's been shown fossil's current symlink support is not ideal. It can be fixed for Unix platforms and can faked enough on other platforms. Or fossil can take the stance that file system meta-information is outside the scope of an SCM. And I'd be fine with either decision. Like, although 'rebase' could be added to fossil, I'm fine with the fossil philosophy that history is immutable. > For Git, our poster-child for difficult tools, this is just a total non-issue. Git was created by Linus, for Linux. Of course it needs to support Linux-y things. -- Rich _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
