[rfc] Transport.stat vs lstat

[John Arbash Meinel]

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

Martin Pool wrote:
> 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?

*I* would be ok with having Transport.stat call lstat.

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

iEYEARECAAYFAkuHx7cACgkQJdeBCYSNAAPB2ACePy2d2eyEF1AFRzlAzH47id6w
57cAnjqteKL0OKTcq0RXD1HLDxFdhINw
=OjT2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----