From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.6 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93720207EC for ; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 21:20:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934184AbcI2VT7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Sep 2016 17:19:59 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:53160 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933484AbcI2VT5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Sep 2016 17:19:57 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1EDE42C30; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 17:19:56 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=ffqfFAl59qNDrLIJ5n3JHIrrXJU=; b=GomAW3 azJRAPbHcsvFIikWOP0SeLfTNtkkZqh0nSTYETm2e241rDeVG8zrBFilGyuDxXKZ AqhhvjQsMoB0ZWi+5Bn+w/zf/7AABKjj+uIECgjqWqiZN6QEGp3o3M2fBCeKIn5Y W7RwRc+pKEUItIB9YJ2/mHBhr0S7NwD/RDwhg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=JlDb4cmWh7yTZstEHdsvZGprymW0Pm1l zehaVWlVrwnjlUkySDlYJteAuGMyrVMgkUcq/2L8tBy4lfe08R8m0Q5+eS5irpMJ JD70AGTeOeNY9H7qutBf6saVwPfvnp1TEwOBd/FATSLD93p30osuEoFSf3203xm2 Tgszjj6iAII= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8E4F42C2F; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 17:19:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0E89142C2E; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 17:19:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Torsten =?utf-8?Q?B=C3=B6gershausen?= , Lars Schneider , git , Stefan Beller , Jakub =?utf-8?Q?Nar=C4=99bski?= , Martin-Louis Bright , ramsay@ramsayjones.plus.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 00/11] Git filter protocol References: <20160920190247.82189-1-larsxschneider@gmail.com> <20160929180247.d4owhzwyawtanw3r@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 14:19:53 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20160929180247.d4owhzwyawtanw3r@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Thu, 29 Sep 2016 14:02:48 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 78308E66-868A-11E6-A9D1-EAAE7A1B28F4-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > I don't necessarily agree, though, that the timing of filter-process > cleanup needs to be part of the public interface. So in your list: > >> 3) Git waits until the filter process finishes. > > That seems simple and elegant, but I can think of reasons we might not > want to wait (e.g., if the filter has to do some maintenance task and > does not the user to have to wait). > > OTOH, we already face this in git, and we solve it by explicitly > backgrounding the maintenance task (i.e., auto-gc). So one could argue > that it is the responsibility of the filter process to manage its own > processes. It certainly makes the interaction with git simpler. Yup, that summarizes my thinking a lot better than I managed to do in the previous message.