On Jan 11, 2008, at 8:30 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted text
>> Apparently so. By Junio's definition, HFS+ is not a sane filesystem,
>> and as git grows more popular with OS X users, this issue is going to
>> crop up more frequently.
>
> It's not "my" definition, but you asked the reason and I gave
> the answer.  We can close this issue of "is HFS+ sane" now.
> HFS+ is insane, period.  And as Linus said, you cannot forgive
> its insanity using the historical baggage argument, like MS-DOS.

Fair enough, though I believe OS X has a good reason, namely it's an  
OS designed for regular users rather than servers or programmers. Case- 
sensitivity would confuse my mother.

quoted text
> HOWEVER.
>
> It is a totally different issue if we want to refuse supporting
> insane filesystems.  And the answer is no.  It was not my
> intention to say that we do not intend to support them, when I
> explained the reason why the things are as they are, which was
> the original question by you.

Ok. I wasn't implying anything with that phrase there, I was just  
trying to reiterate that HFS+ is case-insensitive and emphasize that  
this issue will become more relevant as time goes by.

quoted text
> See Robin's proposal to let us translate random names we get
> back from readdir() from the filesystem using an additional
> look-up table in the index extension section that stores mapping
> from canonicalized form to the form that the user registered to
> the index.  I think that is a sane approach to tackle this issue
> on insane filesystems like HFS+.

If I knew what the index extension section was, perhaps I would think  
that's a good idea ;) I have yet to dive into the gory details of how  
this stuff works.

-- 
Kevin Ballard
http://kevin.sb.org
kevin@sb.org
http://www.tildesoft.com