[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Monotone-devel] Future of monotone
From: |
Jens Finkhäuser |
Subject: |
Re: [Monotone-devel] Future of monotone |
Date: |
Mon, 28 Jan 2008 11:24:26 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) |
On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 10:18:17PM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> >>>>> "jack-monotone" == jack-monotone <address@hidden> writes:
>
> jack-monotone> - support of symlinks
>
> Just curious, why do you want to support symlinks?
Symlinks would be great, yeah. I've got use-cases, and while I'm aware
I could circumvent the issues I'm having, it'd be nicer to just support
symlinks.
> Maybe it would be better without? Consider the possibility of checking
> out the source code to some project and editing a file, without
> realizing somebody (either accidently or maliciously) replaced it with
> a symlink to something under /etc.
Your local filesystem permissions should take care of that problem. If
not, it's IMHO a misconfiguration of your box. But even if you don't
want to take that stance, just having relative symlinks supported would
be a major improvement (in fact, relative symlinks are all I personally
need).
Jens
[Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone, Graydon Hoare, 2008/01/28
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone, Thomas Moschny, 2008/01/28
- [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone, Bruce Stephens, 2008/01/28
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone, Thomas Moschny, 2008/01/28
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone, Markus Schiltknecht, 2008/01/28
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone, Thomas Moschny, 2008/01/28
- [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone, Bruce Stephens, 2008/01/28
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone, Thomas Moschny, 2008/01/28
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone, Markus Schiltknecht, 2008/01/28
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone, Thomas Moschny, 2008/01/28