Bug#796338: check-all-the-things: Ctrl-C only stops current check, not check-all-the-things itself

2015-10-21 Thread Paul Wise
Control: tags -1 + pending On Wed, 2015-10-21 at 14:02 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > I think for ease of implementation, what I will do is catch > KeyboardInterrupt exceptions as usual but if the skipping on Ctrl+C is > disabled, then just re-raise the exception again. Then there would be > an

Bug#796338: check-all-the-things: Ctrl-C only stops current check, not check-all-the-things itself

2015-10-21 Thread Paul Wise
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 19:16:49 +0200 Axel Beckert wrote: > Not really. Because I do expect that a program does not do anything > further except maybe saving any unsafed data upon receiving a single > Ctrl-C or SIGINT. I consider everything else to be counter-intuitive. I think for ease of

Bug#796338: check-all-the-things: Ctrl-C only stops current check, not check-all-the-things itself

2015-10-21 Thread Axel Beckert
Hi Paul, Paul Wise wrote: > Nevermind. I already implemented it, the options are: > > -i/--interrupt quit/exit/skip (default skip) > -p/--interrupt-period (default 0.5 seconds) > > Hopefully that will satisfy everyone's needs. Sounds like a good idea. Thanks! Regards, Axel --

Bug#796338: check-all-the-things: Ctrl-C only stops current check, not check-all-the-things itself

2015-09-02 Thread Axel Beckert
Hi Paul, Paul Wise wrote: > On Fri, 2015-08-21 at 14:13 +0200, Axel Beckert wrote: > > If I want to stop check-all-the-things and press Ctrl-C for that, it > > only seems to abort the current check and continues with the next. I > > need to permanently press Ctrl-C until it hits

Bug#796338: check-all-the-things: Ctrl-C only stops current check, not check-all-the-things itself

2015-09-02 Thread Paul Wise
On Wed, 2015-09-02 at 18:27 +0200, Axel Beckert wrote: > > As a compromise, would it be acceptable to abort completely if you hold > > down Ctrl+C > > That's what I did in the end and I found it annoying. I'm guessing you found it annoying only because it kept running commands but if it stopped

Bug#796338: check-all-the-things: Ctrl-C only stops current check, not check-all-the-things itself

2015-09-02 Thread Axel Beckert
Hi Paul, Paul Wise wrote: > > > As a compromise, would it be acceptable to abort completely if you hold > > > down Ctrl+C > > > > That's what I did in the end and I found it annoying. > > I'm guessing you found it annoying only because it kept running > commands Yes, I generally find such

Bug#796338: check-all-the-things: Ctrl-C only stops current check, not check-all-the-things itself

2015-09-02 Thread Paul Wise
On Fri, 2015-08-21 at 14:13 +0200, Axel Beckert wrote: > If I want to stop check-all-the-things and press Ctrl-C for that, it > only seems to abort the current check and continues with the next. I > need to permanently press Ctrl-C until it hits check-all-the-things > inbetween two two checks.

Bug#796338: check-all-the-things: Ctrl-C only stops current check, not check-all-the-things itself

2015-08-21 Thread Axel Beckert
Package: check-all-the-things Severity: normal Version: 2015.08.11.1 If I want to stop check-all-the-things and press Ctrl-C for that, it only seems to abort the current check and continues with the next. I need to permanently press Ctrl-C until it hits check-all-the-things inbetween two two