Miguel de Icaza wrote:
Hello,
The patch is missing ChangeLog entries, and for the code to make it
into the Mono runtime, you have to either license the code under the MIT
X11 license or sign the proper documentation.
The changelogs are attached. I don't know what you mean by signing any
doc
Hello,
The patch is missing ChangeLog entries, and for the code to make it
into the Mono runtime, you have to either license the code under the MIT
X11 license or sign the proper documentation.
> Rodrigo Kumpera wrote:
> > Yes, open should be more atomic, feel free to contribute a patch that
Rodrigo Kumpera wrote:
Yes, open should be more atomic, feel free to contribute a patch that
fixes this issue.
Attached are the patches.
The nunit tests succeed fine.
>From a18d38c74ab47267bba69cae9596477fcedd1f9a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andreas
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 10:26:16 +0100
Su
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 7:04 AM, LCID Fire wrote:
> Looking at the System.IO.File.Open/System.IO.MonoIO.Copy method I
> noticed some oddities in the implementation.
> First off it does a File.Exists check on the destination file which is
> IMO too early since the destination file is created far l
Looking at the System.IO.File.Open/System.IO.MonoIO.Copy method I
noticed some oddities in the implementation.
First off it does a File.Exists check on the destination file which is
IMO too early since the destination file is created far later on - there
is the possibility that the file could be
