Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

std: Stabilize the process module #22882

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 3, 2015

Conversation

alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

This commits blanket marks the API of the std::process module as #[stable].
The module's API is very similar to the old std::old_io::process API and has
generally had quite a bit of time to bake both before and after the new module
landed.

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member Author

r? @aturon

@rust-highfive rust-highfive assigned aturon and unassigned brson Feb 28, 2015
@rust-highfive
Copy link
Contributor

r? @brson

(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member Author

I will point out that the only grievance I've found in migrating to std::process is something that looks like:

cmd.stdin(Stdio::capture())

In one sense we're not really "capturing stdin" we're more "creating a pipe for it", but I also do not feel strongly about this and can be led to believe that we are indeed "capturing stdin to a pipe".

@aturon aturon mentioned this pull request Feb 28, 2015
91 tasks
@aturon
Copy link
Member

aturon commented Feb 28, 2015

I would be happy for capture to be renamed here -- I agree with the synopsis. I actually think create_pipe or something like that would be fine, since that is in fact what happens on all platforms.

r=me after a rename.

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member Author

How about Stdio::piped ?

@aturon
Copy link
Member

aturon commented Feb 28, 2015

@alexcrichton

How about Stdio::piped ?

:shipit:

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member Author

@bors: r=aturon 3c7937c

@Manishearth
Copy link
Member

This fails tidy, apparently you cannot have a feature used for both stable and unstable things

@Manishearth
Copy link
Member

@bors: r-

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member Author

@bors: r=aturon 97dbf86

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Mar 1, 2015

⌛ Testing commit 97dbf86 with merge e2b47a4...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Mar 1, 2015

⌛ Testing commit 97dbf86 with merge 83a0c4a...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Mar 1, 2015

💔 Test failed - auto-linux-64-opt

This commits blanket marks the API of the `std::process` module as `#[stable]`.
The module's API is very similar to the old `std::old_io::process` API and has
generally had quite a bit of time to bake both before and after the new module
landed.

The one modification made to the API is that `Stdio::capture` is now named
`stdio::piped`.

[breaking-change]
@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member Author

@bors: r=aturon 93613a5

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Mar 2, 2015

⌛ Testing commit 93613a5 with merge b50149e...

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 2, 2015
This commits blanket marks the API of the `std::process` module as `#[stable]`.
The module's API is very similar to the old `std::old_io::process` API and has
generally had quite a bit of time to bake both before and after the new module
landed.
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Mar 2, 2015

💔 Test failed - auto-win-32-opt

@Manishearth
Copy link
Member

@bors: retry

@Manishearth
Copy link
Member

(Timeout; probably not caused by this)

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Mar 2, 2015

⌛ Testing commit 93613a5 with merge b4c965e...

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 2, 2015
This commits blanket marks the API of the `std::process` module as `#[stable]`.
The module's API is very similar to the old `std::old_io::process` API and has
generally had quite a bit of time to bake both before and after the new module
landed.
@bors bors merged commit 93613a5 into rust-lang:master Mar 3, 2015
@bors bors mentioned this pull request Mar 3, 2015
@alexcrichton alexcrichton deleted the stabilize-process branch March 27, 2015 20:42
# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants