Alexandre Ferrieux wrote:
>  After some remarks on c.l.t about [fcopy]'s "known bugs", I'm
>  wondering: is it true ?
>  I looked for "fcopy" in the Tracker, and was surprised to find 4 still
>  opened bugs with [fcopy] in their title !
>  Of these four, three are somewhat negligible:
>  
>  [ 1350564 ] Inadequate fcopy operation --> rather a feature request
>  (allowing fileevents in the reverse direction)
>  
>  [ 1557855 ] fcopy doesn't handle large sizes --> are you routinely
>  using -size>2G ?
>  
>  [ 719790 ] fcopy -command hangs in Win NT4 --> I guess it works on XP,
>  otherwise that one would have driven a torrent of complaints... or
>  would it ?
>  
>  *But* this one:
>  
>  [ 780533 ] [fcopy] callback sometimes fails to trigger
>  
>  is really scary, sufficiently random to be hard to isolate, hence
>  easily discarded by beginners deciding "I really don't get that event
>  stuff, let's work around"...
>  
>  Could it be that very same thing that from time to time a random user
>  mentions as "fcopy known to be buggy" ?
>  
>  Why is it so low-priority ? (The last update in the Tracker is 4 years
>  old, and the priority level is "5").

Can you provide a reproducible test case?

Jeff

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services for
just about anything Open Source.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace
_______________________________________________
Tcl-Core mailing list
Tcl-Core@[...].net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tcl-core