Sorry for a late reply.
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Johannes Schindelin
johannes.schinde...@gmx.de wrote:
Hi kusma,
On Tue, 4 Dec 2012, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
in ab1a11be (mingw_rmdir: set errno=ENOTEMPTY when appropriate),
a check was added to prevent us from retrying to delete a
Hi kusma,
On Wed, 5 Dec 2012, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
Sorry for a late reply.
Yeah, sorry, my replies tend to be delayed a lot. For the record: your
reply was not at all late.
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Johannes Schindelin
johannes.schinde...@gmx.de wrote:
On Tue, 4 Dec 2012, Erik
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Johannes Schindelin
johannes.schinde...@gmx.de wrote:
Hi kusma,
On Wed, 5 Dec 2012, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
Sorry for a late reply.
Yeah, sorry, my replies tend to be delayed a lot. For the record: your
reply was not at all late.
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:35
Erik Faye-Lund kusmab...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Johannes Schindelin
johannes.schinde...@gmx.de wrote:
...
Since we're justifying the approaches, I'd like to explain why I
preferred the return approach: it performs less tests. While this
might sound like premature
in ab1a11be (mingw_rmdir: set errno=ENOTEMPTY when appropriate),
a check was added to prevent us from retrying to delete a directory
that is both in use and non-empty.
However, this logic was slightly flawed; since we didn't return
immediately, we end up falling out of the retry-loop, but right
Hi kusma,
On Tue, 4 Dec 2012, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
in ab1a11be (mingw_rmdir: set errno=ENOTEMPTY when appropriate),
a check was added to prevent us from retrying to delete a directory
that is both in use and non-empty.
However, this logic was slightly flawed; since we didn't return
6 matches
Mail list logo
