Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Feature request]Put back symlink support as power option #5776

Closed
g1franc opened this issue May 17, 2017 · 1 comment
Closed

[Feature request]Put back symlink support as power option #5776

g1franc opened this issue May 17, 2017 · 1 comment

Comments

@g1franc
Copy link

g1franc commented May 17, 2017

Title: Put back desktop client symlink support as a power option

Category: Client/Desktop (Windows)

Link to Central topic (and/or GitHub issue if applicable):

Quick summary of the use case: Put back support for symbolic link in windows desktop client as with an option, hidden option or command line option

Problem it solves / why you think this is important: In the past the desktop client was supporting symbolic link and it was a a very nice feature. But due to the lack of knowledge of some users, it was removed from the client to avoid loop during file tree hierarchy building.
Could you please add it back ?
It is really useful to add folders outside of the synchronized folder.
Best would be to add it as option, (hidden or not) or like a feature needed an specific argument from the command line. This would prevent end-users creating loop with symlink to use it but still allow power users to have the wonderful nice feature. If power user, activate symlink support but create loop -> too bad for them, fight itself.

Any special treatment/checks for symlink could be drop as responsibility would be transferred to user and no more developers.

@g1franc g1franc changed the title Put back symlink support as power option [Feature request]Put back symlink support as power option May 17, 2017
@SamuAlfageme
Copy link
Contributor

Hey @g1franc you can share your good points (including it as expert option) in #5019, some users are in favor of including junctions back and support there in the issue could bring attention back on focus.

Closing here as duplicate.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants