[rfc] Transport.stat vs lstat

[John Arbash Meinel]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Martin Pool wrote:
> The issue arises in
> https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~rls/bzr/transport-link-and-symlink-support/+merge/20096
> of whether Transport.stat should do lstat underneath, or whether there
> should be a separate Transport.lstat.  Previously Transports didn't
> care about symlinks much.
> 
> istm that while consistency with unix is good, making stat always
> explicitly deal with symlinks may actually be likely to avoid some
> misbehaviour there, and it might also be more consistent across
> differerent transports that may not automatically follow symlinks.
> 

bzr doesn't use Transport for anything outside of .bzr/* and we won't
put symlinks there (non portable, etc). So to bzrlib itself, it doesn't
really matter.

Aside from that, I think I would have stat => lstat.

John
=:->

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkuHbEYACgkQJdeBCYSNAAN2BQCgu6k+O9k21m1LRJKeIX2SfUAt
zRsAoKmfwSWNjyjiIsBfJtTeR3wlurRw
=hGS3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----