Re: [PATCH 3/3] compat/mingw: support POSIX semantics for atomic renames

["Kristoffer Haugsbakk" <kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com>]

On Wed, Oct 23, 2024, at 17:05, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> […]
> Careful readers might have noticed that [1] does not mention the above
> flag, but instead mentions `FILE_RENAME_POSIX_SEMANICS`. This flag is

s/FILE_RENAME_POSIX_SEMANICS/FILE_RENAME_FLAG_POSIX_SEMANTICS/

> not for use with `SetFileInformationByHandle()` though, which is what we
> use. And while the `FILE_RENAME_FLAG_POSIX_SEMANTICS` flag exists, it is
> not documented on [2] or anywhere else as far as I can tell.
>
> Unfortuntaly, we still support Windows systems older than Windows 10

s/Unfortuntaly/Unfortunately/

> […]
>
> On another note: `mingw_rename()` has a retry loop that is used in case
> deleting a file failed because it's still open in another process. One
> might be pressed to not use this loop anymore when we can use POSIX
> semantics. But unfortuntaley, we have to keep it around due to our

s/unfortuntaley/unfortunately/

> [1]:
> https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/ddi/ntifs/ns-ntifs-_file_rename_information
> [2]:
> https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winbase/ns-winbase-file_rename_info
>
> Signed-off-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
> ---
>  compat/mingw.c             | 87 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>  t/t0610-reftable-basics.sh |  8 ++--
>  2 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> […]
> +
>  	/* TODO: translate more errors */

It seems that `Documentation` doesn’t mention the difference between
`TODO` and `NEEDSWORK`.  What is it?

> […]
> --
> 2.47.0.118.gfd3785337b.dirty