> On May 10, 2013, 9:09 p.m., Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> > third_party/libprocess/third_party/stout/include/stout/os.hpp, line 900
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/11056/diff/1/?file=290383#file290383line900>
> >
> > I'd prefer calling this 'mv' instead of 'rename' even though we are
> > using the 'rename' syscall. Any reason not to do that?
First, I think its more clear that a wrapper is called the same as what C
function it is wrapping, especially if its only doing one thing. Second, 'mv'
and 'rename' have different semantics depending on whether the destination is
on a different file system ('mv' succeeds where as 'rename' fails). So I don't
want this function to give a wrong illusion on what it is doing. Makes sense?
- Vinod
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/11056/#review20431
-----------------------------------------------------------
On May 10, 2013, 7:17 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/11056/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated May 10, 2013, 7:17 p.m.)
>
>
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman and Ben Mahler.
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> See summary.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> third_party/libprocess/third_party/stout/include/stout/os.hpp
> c71ae9ed32af2a14dc7b9b34521cb5ea6025235c
> third_party/libprocess/third_party/stout/tests/os_tests.cpp
> 047778d05ebbbefd85e4a163dbb6ab8445edfb7f
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/11056/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> make check
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Vinod Kone
>
>
