From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: Topics currently in the Stalled category Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:13:48 -0500 Message-ID: <20121121201348.GG16280@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20121121024647.BBCC82E9301@grass.foxharp.boston.ma.us> <20121121092750.GA8262@shrek.podlesie.net> <20121121193401.GC16280@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7va9ua20nz.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Krzysztof Mazur , Paul Fox , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Nov 21 21:14:14 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TbGgP-0003Iq-Ve for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 21:14:06 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756226Ab2KUUNw (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:13:52 -0500 Received: from 75-15-5-89.uvs.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([75.15.5.89]:54500 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756190Ab2KUUNv (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:13:51 -0500 Received: (qmail 9956 invoked by uid 107); 21 Nov 2012 20:14:44 -0000 Received: from ip68-100-44-35.dc.dc.cox.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (68.100.44.35) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:14:44 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:13:48 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7va9ua20nz.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:53:04AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > [1] Given the core-dumping behavior of SIGQUIT, I suspect it is not > > nearly as widely used as SIGINT, but it sounds more like the > > principle of least surprise to treat them the same. > > Sounds sensible. I wonder what happens when the editor is suspended > ;-) I think we would want to leave SIGTSTP alone; the editor should typically respect it, and we would want to also pause until we get SIGCONT (although even if we did continue, we would just be blocking on wait() for the editor, anyway, so it is not a big deal). Implicit in my "least surprise" comment above is that handling SIGQUIT would match what system(3) does, so it makes sense to me to match that (it also blocks SIGCHLD, but I do not think that really matters from a user-visible perspective). -Peff