Branko Hibej wrote:
>
> Bruce Korb wrote:
>
> > The boolean is anticipatory.
> > *When* svn becomes a shell :), certain commands will need to run
> > in the parent process (e.g. "exit" and "cd"), while nearly all
> > others will run in a subprocess (so they can exit with failure
> > without killing the main loop).
>
> I'd like to stomp on this one before it happens.
>
> There exist systems where "fork" doesn't exist -- e.g., it's gruesomly
> expensive and inconvenient to implement. Is the only for creating a
> subprocess so that you can write "exit(1)" instead of "return 1"? If so,
> please consider doing without subprocesses.
Even WinNT and WinME have fork(). Only Win9x and earlier are that
anemic. Are they in the target list? Besides that, the `you can write'
must refer to everyone in all client-side routines throughout SVN.
It is easier and safer to cope with a dead child than rely on
all routines doing the right thing. But, hey. If you want to count
on all routines cleaning up correctly rather than letting fork/exit
do it, cool. I was just thinking that with fork/exit you are certain
to have bullet proof code. Deprive Win9x of the shell version, I say
:-).
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:14 2006