On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 12:23:28PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > By the way, does this patch (and the other symlink-escape ones) need to > > be marked with the SYMLINKS prereq? For a pure-index application, it > > should work anywhere, but I have a feeling that this "git apply patch" > > may try to write the symlink to the filesystem, fail, and report failure > > for the wrong reason. I don't have a SYMLINK-challenged filesystem to > > test on, though. > > We check the links to be created by the patch itself in-core before > going to the filesystem, and the symbolic links you are creating > using mkpatch_symlink should be caught before we invoke symlink(2), > I think. > > In other words, this series attempts to stick to the "verify > everything in-core before deciding that it is OK to touch the > working tree or the index".
Right, I do not think these tests will _fail_ when the filesystem does not support symlinks. But nor are they actually testing anything interesting. They would pass on such a system even without your patch, as we would fail to apply even the symlink creation part of the patch. I can live with leaving them unmarked, though. It gets the code exercised on more systems, which gives a slightly higher chance of catching some other unexpected breakage. -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
