On 28/09/16 22:37, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
> On 09/28/2016 03:27 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>> The attached patch how has the preferred behavior option 2
>> both with and without inotify.
>
> Great, this looks good to me.
> +1
Thanks for the reviews.
Pushed at:
On 09/28/2016 03:27 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> The attached patch how has the preferred behavior option 2
> both with and without inotify.
Great, this looks good to me.
+1
Thanks & have a nice day,
Berny
On 27/09/16 21:16, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
> On 09/21/2016 08:15 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>> We can get expected behavior option 1 with the attached patch.
>> Note that's inconsistent with current inotify behavior which does
>> _not_ actually give up on the name, as can be seen when starting
>>
On 09/21/2016 08:15 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> We can get expected behavior option 1 with the attached patch.
> Note that's inconsistent with current inotify behavior which does
> _not_ actually give up on the name, as can be seen when starting
> with a (non existent) file:
>
> $ touch foo
> $
On 21/09/16 15:22, Julian Büning wrote:
> observed behavior:
>
> $ mkdir foo
> $ tail -F foo &
> [1] 1000
> tail: error reading 'foo': Is a directory
> tail: foo: cannot follow end of this type of file; giving up on this name
> $ rmdir foo ; echo moo > foo
> $ jobs
> [1]+ Running
observed behavior:
$ mkdir foo
$ tail -F foo &
[1] 1000
tail: error reading 'foo': Is a directory
tail: foo: cannot follow end of this type of file; giving up on this name
$ rmdir foo ; echo moo > foo
$ jobs
[1]+ Running tail -F foo &
expected behavior option 1:
$ mkdir foo
$
