On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 07:21, Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote: > Greg Stein wrote on Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 07:03:39 -0400: >... >> 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?
I think that I was just eaten by a grue. Not sure what you mean here. Twisty passages, and all that. Cheers, -g
