On 27.06.2013 21:16, Greg Stein wrote: > On IRC, Branko noted: > on the subject of ev2 api, i'm wondering if add_symlink and > alter_symlink should really be there. it looks like special-casing on > one type of special node > > > There is *only* one type of special node. There are no plans for any > other type of special node.
Yes, there are. And not only in my head, either. :) I just haven't got around to starting a design doc. > The current design of a pseudo-file is ridiculous. I agree that better designs are possible. Certainly the pseudo-file approach should be an implementation detail of the wire protocol. However, I would hesitate to invent actual new node types because they cannot be represented in older repositories, making the client<->server compatibility problem harder. > wc_db and Ev2 break out the three node types that we deal > with: dir, file, symlink. As part of that symlink was added to > svn_node_kind_t, so that we can talk about symlinks as first-class > items. Later in that same IRC log I concluded that talking about symlinks to the WC makes sense, as they're something most filesystems know about. > The svn:special design is horrible. For backwards compat and wire > protocol purposes, we'll always have to deal with it, but we can fix > our top-level APIs. That depends on what you call a top-level API; mine for symlinks is called "ln" :) -- Brane -- Branko Čibej | Director of Subversion WANdisco // Non-Stop Data e. br...@wandisco.com
