5 ms·

I'm not surprised Chen's patch was rejected; that's an extremely niche usecase not worth supporting. With my shell developer hat on, I agree with the closing "d

I'm not surprised Chen's patch was rejected; that's an extremely niche usecase not worth supporting. With my shell developer hat on, I agree with the closing "developers would likely welcome a native implementation that isn't (unlike the current implementation) hiding fork() and exec() under the covers".

smj-edison 3mo ago
It sounds like they're interested in the concept though, just not that specific implementation.
- sanderjd 3mo ago
  Yeah this seems like a promising discussion.
  - Chu4eeno 3mo ago
    It has been for decades at this point. thiago's blog posts which introduced me to the topic over a decade ago (and is still one of the best explainers) points out that posix_spawn was introduced in POSIX.1-2001: https://web.archive.org/web/20120718152158/http://www.macieira.org/blog/2012/07/forkfd-part-1-launching-processes-on-unix/ https://web.archive.org/web/20120718152158/http://www.maciei...
    - sanderjd 3mo ago
      Yeah fair enough.