On 03/25/2010 08:07 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
hi,
this is not fixing the root of #6587 but at least we add some
safety measures. since its touching sensitive area of code,
i'd like to ask for review before committing.
I read the thread on the bug. This is weird and annoying. From what I
can tell, your approach seems reasonable.
i have a small doubt whether this snippet
// Saving failed, so backup is not backup
if (madeBackup)
- backupName.moveTo(d->filename);
+ backupName.copyTo(d->filename);
wouldnt be better this way
// Saving failed, so backup is not backup
if (madeBackup)
backupName.moveTo(d->filename);
+ d->filename.copyTo(d->backupName);
I'm a bit puzzled here. Why can't we just move the backup file back to
where it was and do nothing else? Is the thought that we ought to have a
backup? Having two copies of the file doesn't help much. But what we
could do is move the original backup file, too, rather than over-writing
it. Then, if the backup fails, it can be restored; if it succeeds, it
can be deleted. In effect, we restore the original situation.
rh
