> Le 10/10/2014 17:52, David T. Lewis a écrit : >>> 2014-10-10 14:09 GMT+02:00 David T. Lewis <le...@mail.msen.com>: >>> >>>> >>>> Right. But please do test it in your applications to be sure, I really >>>> only >>>> did simple testing and I am sure there may still chances for problems >>>> in >>>> this area. >>>> >>> >>> Hi Dave, >>> >>> Would it has a chance of slowing down things a lot? >>> >>> There is apparently something going very very slow compared to >>> OSProcess >>> 4.5.11 when used from GitFileTree. So slow that I killed the image >>> building >>> script before it was over. Reverting GitFileTree to 4.5.11 solved it. >>> >> >> I don't this so, but I am not certain. The update for PipeableOSProcess >> affects only the methods in PipeableOSProcess class>>command: and >> closely >> related methods. If GitFileTree is using that idiom, then it is >> certainly >> possible that I have introduced a bug that does not show up in my unit >> tests. > > Typical code in GitFileTree is this: > > [ > c := PipeableOSProcess command: ''. > output := c output. > ... > ] ensure: [c closePipes] > > Maybe it's triggering something. > > Thierry >
Hmmm... I wonder if the #closePipes is causing a problem now. I don't know if I ever tested to see if sending closePipes works after the pipes are already closed, and my recent change closes the pipes after #output is evaluated. I'll check it when I get home. Thanks, Dave
