Open
Conversation
when rename fails with EBUSY we should also retry like we do with EPERM and EACCESS behaviour is consistent with rm (https://github.com/isaacs/rimraf) resolves isaacs#127
|
Would you consider merging this pull request ? I'm getting warning because of this issue when running |
|
@isaacs Say, while this PR is no longer mergeable and has no tests, the fix it implements actually solves a problem we've run into on 4.2.8. Would you accept a "respin" of this PR if I contributed one? I would reapply this fix on top of the current implementation + provide test coverage. |
|
This one was fixed: #127 |
|
Thanks for the info @zkochan ! |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
win32: retry rename on EBUSY, as we do for EPERM and EACCESS
EBUSY can occur when resources are locked by applications (ex. Dropbox, AV). it seems sensible to retry in this scenario too. the proposed behavior is consistent with rimraf (https://github.com/isaacs/rimraf)
resolves #127