On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 5:01 AM, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does that sound OK?
Sounds good to me. I'd simply add a warning indicating
maxSymlinkTraversal was hit. "User" or verbose level is debatable
again. Similarly, maybe an internal flag in DS should be gettable to
possibly hav
On Mon, 08 Sep 2008, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=693071&view=rev
> Log:
> delete broken symbolic links. PR 41285
Note there is a certain kind of not-being-BWC in this change. Prior
to the patch if you said
and foo happened to be a symbolic link pointing
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, Gilles Scokart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I fear that with this aproach, you may have to "rollback" some of
> the files already scanned because you will detect a loop after you
> have already looped one or more time (including multiple time the
> same files).
We'd detect the
I fear that with this aproach, you may have to "rollback" some of the
files already scanned because you will detect a loop after you have
already looped one or more time (including multiple time the same
files).
This "rollback" will be required if you want to provide a "clean"
fileset when the pat
OK, combining suggestions by Gilles and Dominique here is what we
could do:
* add a new sttribute for maxSymlinkRecursionDepth (better name
appreciated) and make it default to 5 (up for discussion as well).
This limits how many times the same symlink can be followed.
* Keep a stack of simple
On Fri, 5 Sep 2008, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> After Stefan pointed out that Ant has it's own Apt task
That's been Steve Loughran, not me.
> I seem to have this working.
Great!
Stefan
-
To unsubscribe, e
