Restart using Process.argv0 only if $PROGRAM_NAME is not a script
#8343
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
deivid-rodriguez
force-pushed
the
deivid-rodriguez/revert-argv-rexec-change
branch
from
303a249 to
22c6fcf
Compare
deivid-rodriguez
changed the title
Process.argv0Process.argv0 only if $PROGRAM_NAME is not a script
Contributor
Author
|
I modified the patch to not completely revert #8320 so that old passenger keeps working on restarts. Still hope they switch to using |
deivid-rodriguez
deleted the
deivid-rodriguez/revert-argv-rexec-change
branch
deivid-rodriguez
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 20, 2024
…exec-change Restart using `Process.argv0` only if `$PROGRAM_NAME` is not a script (cherry picked from commit 22b2800)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What was the end-user or developer problem that led to this PR?
The change proposed by #8320 made sense in principle, but after seeing some issues caused by it, it no longer seems like a good change.
If
$0is changed, it should be assumed that further re-executions will use the assigned value.From passenger's maintainers explanation of their investigation, they want to re-assign
$0just to get a friendlierpsoutput, but that's what Process.setproctitle is for, so passenger should be changed to use that.What is your fix for the problem, implemented in this PR?
Revert #8320.
Fixes #8339.
Make sure the following tasks are checked