[PLUGIN] bzr uncommit updated

[John Yates]

If you test only for the platform then in a Windows
environment you must conservatively eschew hardlinking.
If OTOH you test for the filesystem hosting the bzr
workspace, and if we assume that the vast majority of
Windows boxes likely to run bzr will be W2K or later
and will be NTFS-based, then you can exploit hardlinks.


To whit, Mercurial's WhatsNew:

  http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/index.cgi/WhatsNew



Changes from 0.6 to 0.7: 
  ...
  portability
   full support for Windows, including hardlinking and file filtering
  ...


Changes from 0.6c to 0.7: 
  ...
  Windows support
   hardlinking support
  ...

/john

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 9:21 PM
Subject: Re: [PLUGIN] bzr uncommit updated

Aaron Bentley wrote:
> John A Meinel wrote:
> 
  [..SNIP..]
>
> Ugh, yes.  I'd forgotten about that.  I think I'll invert the test and
> only hard link on known-safe platforms.
> 
> Anyone know the sys.platform or platform.system() values for Linux and
> major Unices?
> 

Well, I know of "linux2", but I don't know the major unixes.

Though I'd be fine if you said:

if sys.platform not in ('win32', 'cygwin', 'darwin'):