Joe Orton wrote:
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 12:50:44AM -0000, William Rowe wrote:
Author: wrowe
Date: Mon Nov 5 16:50:41 2007
New Revision: 592215
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=592215&view=rev
Log:
It is entirely pointless to have nonportable behaviors as examples
to end users of the library. Good point, however, for an @tip.
That was a test case for a bug in the implementation of
apr_dir_make_recursive (see r291339). You have certainly *made* it
entirely pointless.
If we are testing make_recursive, why are we we doing so in this context?
That particular implementation has some assumptions, right, I get that.
We have a place for implementation tests, it's within test/internal/, where
we removed the testucs module you objected to way back when.
It's a good solution; for trunk and moving forwards, lets adopt it.
Please revert this and explain what problem you were seeing with the
test case. And please use commit log messages which describe the change
you are making, rather than some abstract commentary.
Message documented in STATUS. Nothing should be emitted in ./testall -v
that doesn't reflect an implementation oversight, an implementation flaw
or an outright bug in apr or it's OS. This particular case was not a flaw,
as I spelled out in apr_file_io.h's @warning.
That said; I thought my @remark documentation was clear enough, sorry about
the log entry, next time i'll cut and past the associated @remark.
@@ -834,6 +834,8 @@
* Remove directory from the file system.
* @param path the path for the directory to be removed. (use / on all systems)
* @param pool the pool to use.
+ * @tip removing a directory which is in-use (e.g., the current working
+ * directory, or during apr_dir_read, or with an open file) is not portable.
