[rfc] Transport.stat vs lstat

[Martin Pool]

On 26 February 2010 17:37, John Arbash Meinel <john at arbash-meinel.com> wrote:
> 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.

The context of this is bzr-upload wanting to use it to create a remote
working tree.

I think eventually I would at least like the option to do all wt
access through a transport; I realize there may be performance
concerns about actually doing it.  But it would allow some extra
flexibility for testing etc.

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

Do you mean rename stat to lstat, or do you mean that it's ok for stat
to call lstat?
-- 
Martin <http://launchpad.net/~mbp/>