Am 10.01.2013 21:22, schrieb Junio C Hamano:
> Jeff King <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Maybe the right rule is "if we are using the shell to execute, do not
>> mention SIGPIPE"? It seems a little iffy at first, but:
>>
>> 1. It tends to coincide with direct use of internal tools versus
>> external tools.
>>
>> 2. We do not reliably get SIGPIPE there, anyway, since most shells
>> will convert it into exit code 141 before we see it.
>>
>> I.e., something like:
>
> Hmph. That may be a good heuristics, but I wonder if we also want
> to special case WIFEXITED(status) && WEXITSTATUS(status) == 141 to
> pretend as if nothing went wrong, when ignore_sigpipe is in effect?
The purpose of Peff's patch is to remove the error message, but not to
pretend success (the return code remains 141).
I looked at all instances with use_shell=1 or RUN_USING_SHELL:
Most of the time, we do not care where the output of the command goes
to, which I regard as the same case as when a shell runs a command: We
don't need to report the SIGPIPE death.
The interesting cases are when git reads back the output of the command.
Here, a SIGPIPE death of the child would indicate a bug in git, I think,
and some diagnostic would be worth it. But we can just as well declare
that git doesn't have bugs ;)
These are the interesting cases:
connect.c:640: conn->use_shell = 1;
a connection to a local repository
convert.c:372: child_process.use_shell = 1;
clean/smudge filter
credential.c:216: helper.use_shell = 1;
credential helper
diff.c:4851: child.use_shell = 1;
textconv
All in all, I think the heuristics makes sense.
-- Hannes
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
