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 271E4207EC for ; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 21:27:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934206AbcI2V12 (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Sep 2016 17:27:28 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:61984 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932267AbcI2V10 (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Sep 2016 17:27:26 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78CD442CF3; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 17:27:25 -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=gUEEkETx7QxadCwUeFt1ZUQWPV8=; b=lNGFM6 PsZXALHtbpvef/GLwNIUdh01jxLk5r7woYUpI3kL+pimMoq+N/OhnoCP5hOBrg1X z9sZ19jrL5j/bJ/fVm7o/wFbwx33D/iSN6p0CfK/yq9ibBNgV3g2BB5Buccp4qcz +i9WRYn53FrpQfJJVSa1aspDVOKCq0XvjmqcA= 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=P5Zg5fYdajzezOeMNh6C4TrDLqpTrYAl 2BZh+dQfcdmL6aEe+AlAzU9exocN3SAx7d9UdGuEFZnytLPXKXP82SAIp+BuxNso /Ak7qQ1fPA104XJVLAAbQU7cRMA7ipsfparjIbwmY6jMQJHsX+qgu6A2iQTzepuK jBwzl030+TQ= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70D5D42CF2; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 17:27:25 -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 E1E0742CF1; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 17:27:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Lars Schneider Cc: Torsten =?utf-8?Q?B=C3=B6gershausen?= , git , Jeff King , 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> <1A8A9127-4DF9-44AD-9497-F8A630AB1193@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 14:27:22 -0700 In-Reply-To: <1A8A9127-4DF9-44AD-9497-F8A630AB1193@gmail.com> (Lars Schneider's message of "Thu, 29 Sep 2016 19:57:43 +0200") 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: 83BAE744-868B-11E6-BC39-EAAE7A1B28F4-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Lars Schneider writes: > We discussed that issue in v4 and v6: > http://public-inbox.org/git/20160803225313.pk3tfe5ovz4y3i7l@sigill.intra.peff.net/ > http://public-inbox.org/git/xmqqbn0a3wy3.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com/ > > My impression was that you don't want Git to wait for the filter process. > If Git waits for the filter process - how long should Git wait? I am not sure where you got that impression. I did say that I do not want Git to _KILL_ my filter process. That does not mean I want Git to go away without waiting for me. If the filter process refuses to die forever when Git told it to shutdown (by closing the pipe to it, for example), that filter process is simply buggy. I think we want users to become aware of that, instead of Git leaving it behind, which essentially is to sweep the problem under the rug. I agree with what Peff said elsewhere in the thread; if a filter process wants to take time to clean things up while letting Git proceed, it can do its own process management, but I think it is sensible for Git to wait the filter process it directly spawned.