Re: [PATCH] tail: add comments noting potential inotify-related problems

[Jim Meyering]

Giuseppe Scrivano wrote:
> Jim Meyering <address@hidden> writes:
>> I'm not convinced that adding a lot of new code just to make tail -f
>> handle a far-fetched case like that is worthwhile.  But that's just
>> my opinion, and if someone can present a use-case that makes it seem
>> the additional code would be put to good use, I'll keep an open mind ;)
>
> So you don't want tail -F to handle the case that the parent directory is
> removed and after re-created?  tail will not open again the watched file
> in this case, or in the case the parent directory was created after tail
> initialization.

Hi Giuseppe,

That's right.  I'm not convinced it's worth handling that case,
due to what I perceive as an inordinately high cost/benefit ratio.
[by "cost", I mean not just raw code size, but also maintenance
over the coming years]

However, if someone comes up with a particularly small and clean patch
to add that functionality, it might be acceptable.