Greg Stein wrote on Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 07:03:39 -0400: > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 06:19, Julian Foad <julian.f...@wandisco.com> wrote: > >... > > I haven't thought through how this would affect the future of the > > 'svn:special' property. Were there any plans to make 'svn:special' > > describe special files other than symlinks (devices, pipes, etc.)? > > Somebody may have thought about that in the past, and they should be > tarred and feathered. svn:special is an awful hack :-( > > Look at it this way: we should have a symlink kind (in svn_kind_t) as > a first-order value, and then we separately worry about how to marshal > that kind around and/or represent it within our > classic/backwards-compat system (read: svn:special). Our current > interfaces should be talking about symlinks. Under the covers, we do > "funny stuff" for that kind of node. >
So, taking your line of thought further, in 2.0 svn:special could become as much of an implementation detail as the "repository-normal form" detail of svn:eol-style? > >... > > Cheers, > -g
