Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> writes:

> On Fri, 11 Nov 2016, Jacob Keller wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> > Dennis Kaarsemaker <den...@kaarsemaker.net> writes:
>> >
>> >> No tests or documentation updates yet, and I'm not sure whether
>> >> --follow-symlinks in other modes than --no-index should be supported, 
>> >> ignored
>> >> (as it is now) or cause an error, but I'm leaning towards the third 
>> >> option.
>> >
>> > My knee-jerk reaction is:
>> >
>> >  * The --no-index mode should default to your --follow-symlinks
>> >    behaviour, without any option to turn it on or off.
>> >
>> 
>> I agree. We shouldn't have to specify this for no-index.
>
> Ummm. *My* idea of --no-index was for it to behave as similar to the
> --index version as possible. For example when comparing directories
> containing symlinks. You seem intent on breaking this scenario.

Perhaps a viable compromise between the two is to only always
dereference at the top-level (i.e. the trees to be compared) under
"--no-index" mode and not changing anything else?

The original use case by Dennis is not even about doing a recursive
two-directories-in-a-filesystem comparison and encountering a
symbolic link (it was to compare two BLOBs, which happen to be
output from two commands).

Reply via email to