Jeff King <p...@peff.net> 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.