"Eric Y. Kow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > What about DARCS_SSH and the other commands using exec? >> >> Particularly Eric might have an opinion, as he's borne the brunt of quite a >> few ssh-related bug reports... > > Eek? > > Well, I'm mostly waiting on enlightenment on the DARCS_ARGUMENT thing > first. I also wonder if we would ever get into the situation where > we try launch two commands at the same time and have them accidentally > step over each others DARCS_ARGUMENTS toes. I confess I really don't > understand this stuff very well and can only say silly superficial > things like "let's avoid introducing any more weird ssh-calling bugs > if we can".
I don't see a situation where it can happen for edit_file/view_file and i don't think we're using threads anymore, but I agree that changing the ssh code is just not worth it. I think there aren't many people using DARCS_SSH on unix and it's much less important to handle every possible shell trick there. One thing that we should support (i don't know if it works now) is DARCS_SSH="C:\My Programs\putty\ssh -v", but i don't know how windows handles spaces in filenames. > If anything, I'd like to see the exec code using System.Process the > basic principle being to keep our code simple and farm out all the ugly > to dedicated libraries by people who've been thinking harder about this > stuff than us (plus the Windows code uses it now, so it could be > simpler). But if we did this, would we lose Magnus Jonsson's rigourous > error checking? What about 6.2 support, can we use 6.4.1 (i remember some import bugs in 6.4) as oldest supported compiler for unstable? Benedikt _______________________________________________ darcs-devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.abridgegame.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
