On 9/2/10 6:44 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
> I wanted to check in and see if there was a chance of this feature being
> accepted upstream before I spent any time on it... so here goes.
>
> The "wait [n]" command is handy, but would be even handier is:
>
> wait [[-a] n]
>
> instead, which asy
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Philip Prindeville
wrote:
> On 9/3/10 10:44 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
>>
>> On 09/02/2010 04:44 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
>>>
>>> I wanted to check in and see if there was a chance of this feature being
>>> accepted upstream before I spent any time on it... so here
On 9/3/10 10:44 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 09/02/2010 04:44 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
I wanted to check in and see if there was a chance of this feature being
accepted upstream before I spent any time on it... so here goes.
The "wait [n]" command is handy, but would be even handier is:
wait
On 09/02/2010 04:44 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
I wanted to check in and see if there was a chance of this feature being
accepted upstream before I spent any time on it... so here goes.
The "wait [n]" command is handy, but would be even handier is:
wait [[-a] n]
instead, which asynchronously
I wanted to check in and see if there was a chance of this feature being
accepted upstream before I spent any time on it... so here goes.
The "wait [n]" command is handy, but would be even handier is:
wait [[-a] n]
instead, which asynchronously checks to see if process 'n' has completed.
I.
