[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] ls --group-directories-first: symlinks to dirs are dirs too
From: |
Eric Blake |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] ls --group-directories-first: symlinks to dirs are dirs too |
Date: |
Tue, 12 Feb 2008 18:23:39 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071031 Thunderbird/2.0.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
According to Bert Wesarg on 2/12/2008 9:50 AM:
|> Thanks for the patch, but a change in behavior like that
|> requires some serious justification.
| I read the thread in the mail archive. Eric Blake questioned the symlink
| behavior in the first reply (still in the patch tracker):
I'm not sure if the current state of things is more from Francesco's code
or mine, but I do remember the conversation:
|
|> Your patch does not take into account what behavior should be used
|> with symlinks to dirs - are they grouped with directories, or with
|> files, or does it depend on other options (such as -L)?
|
| And indeed a -L with --group-directories-first does sort symlinks to
| directories like directories. But they don't look like symlinks anymore.
|
| Anyway, this fact was not really discussed, Francesco decided that
| symlinks to directories are non-directories and no one objected.
Additionally, IIRC, one of the reasons that --group-directories-first was
added was to mimic default behavior of a certain 'dir' program popular on
proprietary systems, but those systems did not have symlinks, so there
really is no prior art on how ls should behave on symlinks-to-dirs.
|
| Currently there is no test for this option, even Francesco has posted
| one which also consider symlinks, and the documentation for this options
| doesn't mention symlinks too. So, IMHO there is no change in documented
| behavior with this patch.
This point I can agree with. --group-directories-first is relatively new,
and since it is currently silent about behavior on links, I have no
problem with changing that behavior; however, I would insist that if we
make a change, we add test cases and documentation to lock in that
behavior for the future.
- --
Don't work too hard, make some time for fun as well!
Eric Blake address@hidden
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Cygwin)
Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFHskaa84KuGfSFAYARAqbqAKClDoy+4iLwce0cRZEq4hiCuzeJ8gCfb/EG
rSOmEJ1fl7+zVyjJ9DDQ2Sk=
=PtGu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----