> On Sep 23, 2016, at 12:47, Matt Mackall <m...@selenic.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 18:20 -0500, Kevin Bullock wrote: >>> >>> On Sep 22, 2016, at 13:21, Matt Mackall <m...@selenic.com> wrote: [...] >>> + try: >>> + src = util.popen(cmd) >> Erm, don't we want to use util.popen2 or one of the other variants that use >> subprocess instead? > > The universal advantages of subprocess are overstated. For the simple task of > reading stdout from a subprocess, util.popen is perfectly suited. If it > wasn't.. > we'd fix util.popen.
Related to my reply below: if we use popen, does stderr not get captured? I.e. will the user see the stderr output in their terminal? >> ...and maybe handle ENOENT gracefully? > > We can't, because cmd is an arbitrary shell expression. I mean that it would be nice to inform a user somehow that their arbitrary shell expression failed and what the error was (ENOENT meaning "command not found" in this case). pacem in terris / мир / शान्ति / سَلاَم / 平和 Kevin R. Bullock _______________________________________________ Mercurial-devel mailing list Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
