https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=361956
--- Comment #1 from ro...@yopmail.fr --- I found bug 316240. This comment by David Faure is relevant: https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=316240#c4 Then this change review: https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/52059/ There Thiago Macieira says: > Hardlinks being split up is not a bug, it's a feature. With further explanations: > Who says the effects are undesireable? At least I, the author of bug 316240, and the five voters on same. :-) > The hardlink may have been placed there so a backup copy could exist if the > file got modified. Or it may not. It is totally not up to the developer to second guess a user's intention. Especially not on so flimsy grounds. Surely if one wants a backup copy one makes a COPY of a file, not a hard link? Can anybody point to an actual and intended example of this "backup by hard link" scenario? > Think of how Git shares object files between repositories: a hardlink is > created and, if the file is modified for any reason (not one of the WORM > files), it breaks the hardlink -- COW behaviour. Yes but Git controls all access to those files: the user never accesses them directly. This is *not* the case with the sort of files that KSaveFile is going to be operating on. Please note that: 1. Every other text editor in the known universe preserves hard links. 2. This results in inconsistent behaviour depending on whether a hard or soft link has been used (the latter are preserved). Sorry, but I really do think that this is most definitely a bug, not a feature. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
