On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 20:34:00 +0200 Irek Szczesniak wrote: > On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Glenn Fowler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 16:37:36 +0200 =?KOI8-R?B?z8zYx8Egy9LZ1sHOz9fTy8HR?= > > wrote: > >> --047d7b603dccfe0d4104e61c8fa1 > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > >> Glenn, this clean up patch is still on hold, right? > > > > yes on hold
> Can I ask why? We're talking about > astksh20130829_libcmd_at001.diff.txt, right? The patch which replaces > open() with openat() and sfopen() with sfopenat() and so on? > I have trouble understanding this because it should be a low risk patch. the problem is it only attacks part of libcmd fts, which is the basis for all ast directory traversal, needs to grok *at() too, and its not as straightforward as the other parts why hold off on a partial patch? because based on past experience the day 2 mail flood will start with "none of the -R commands work" _______________________________________________ ast-developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.research.att.com/mailman/listinfo/ast-developers
