On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> Am 6/9/2013 22:31, schrieb Junio C Hamano:
>> Jeff King writes:
>>
>>> I'm a little negative on handling just SIGTERM. That would make the test
>>> pass, but does it really address the overall issue? To me, the
>>> usefulness is having exit
Am 6/9/2013 22:31, schrieb Junio C Hamano:
> Jeff King writes:
>
>> I'm a little negative on handling just SIGTERM. That would make the test
>> pass, but does it really address the overall issue? To me, the
>> usefulness is having exit values with consistent meanings.
>
> Yes. Unless the goal i
Jeff King writes:
> I'm a little negative on handling just SIGTERM. That would make the test
> pass, but does it really address the overall issue? To me, the
> usefulness is having exit values with consistent meanings.
Yes. Unless the goal is to give Windows port pratically the same
signal sema
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 12:12:52PM +0200, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
> > Yeah, if it were mingw_raise responsible for this, I would suggest using
> > the POSIX shell "128+sig" instead. We could potentially check for
> > SIG_DFL[1] mingw_raise and intercept and exit there. I don't know if
> > that would
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> Am 6/7/2013 14:46, schrieb Erik Faye-Lund:
>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Johannes Sixt wrote:
>>> Am 6/7/2013 14:00, schrieb Erik Faye-Lund:
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Johannes Sixt
wrote:
> Am 6/7/2013 12:12, schri
Am 6/7/2013 14:46, schrieb Erik Faye-Lund:
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Johannes Sixt wrote:
>> Am 6/7/2013 14:00, schrieb Erik Faye-Lund:
>>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Johannes Sixt wrote:
Am 6/7/2013 12:12, schrieb Erik Faye-Lund:
> diff --git a/compat/mingw.c b/compat/ming
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> Am 6/7/2013 14:00, schrieb Erik Faye-Lund:
>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Johannes Sixt wrote:
>>> Am 6/7/2013 12:12, schrieb Erik Faye-Lund:
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 10:21:47AM
Am 6/7/2013 14:00, schrieb Erik Faye-Lund:
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Johannes Sixt wrote:
>> Am 6/7/2013 12:12, schrieb Erik Faye-Lund:
>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Jeff King wrote:
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 10:21:47AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> The particular def
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> Am 6/7/2013 12:12, schrieb Erik Faye-Lund:
>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Jeff King wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 10:21:47AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>>
> The particular deficiency is that when a signal is raise()d whose SI
Am 6/7/2013 12:12, schrieb Erik Faye-Lund:
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Jeff King wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 10:21:47AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>
The particular deficiency is that when a signal is raise()d whose SIG_DFL
action will cause process death (SIGTERM in this c
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 10:21:47AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> > The particular deficiency is that when a signal is raise()d whose SIG_DFL
>> > action will cause process death (SIGTERM in this case), the
>> > implementation of raise() just c
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 8:34 AM, Johannes Sixt wrote:
>> From: Johannes Sixt
>>
>> The test case depends on that test-sigchain can commit suicide by a call
>> to raise(SIGTERM) in a way that run-command.c::wait_or_whine() can detect
>> as d
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 8:34 AM, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> From: Johannes Sixt
>
> The test case depends on that test-sigchain can commit suicide by a call
> to raise(SIGTERM) in a way that run-command.c::wait_or_whine() can detect
> as death through a signal. There are no POSIX signals on Windows, a
Am 6/6/2013 19:40, schrieb Jeff King:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 10:21:47AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>>> The particular deficiency is that when a signal is raise()d whose SIG_DFL
>>> action will cause process death (SIGTERM in this case), the
>>> implementation of raise() just calls exit(3).
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
>> If somebody wants to write a note somewhere in the git
>> documentation, that's fine with me, but I'm not clear on exactly
>> what it would even say.
>
> I agree with both points. I can suggest to clarify the log mess
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 10:21:47AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > The particular deficiency is that when a signal is raise()d whose SIG_DFL
> > action will cause process death (SIGTERM in this case), the
> > implementation of raise() just calls exit(3).
>
> After a bit of web searching, it seem
Jeff King writes:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 01:41:05AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
>> > Thanks. I wasn't quite clear on how the signal handling worked on
>> > Windows, but from your description, I agree there is not any point in
>> > running the test at all.
>>
>> Shouldn't we clarify that
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 01:41:05AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
>> > Thanks. I wasn't quite clear on how the signal handling worked on
>> > Windows, but from your description, I agree there is not any point in
>> > running the test at all.
>>
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 01:41:05AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > Thanks. I wasn't quite clear on how the signal handling worked on
> > Windows, but from your description, I agree there is not any point in
> > running the test at all.
>
> Shouldn't we clarify that Git exit codes only work on
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:37 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 08:34:41AM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote:
>
>> From: Johannes Sixt
>>
>> The test case depends on that test-sigchain can commit suicide by a call
>> to raise(SIGTERM) in a way that run-command.c::wait_or_whine() can detect
>>
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 08:34:41AM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> From: Johannes Sixt
>
> The test case depends on that test-sigchain can commit suicide by a call
> to raise(SIGTERM) in a way that run-command.c::wait_or_whine() can detect
> as death through a signal. There are no POSIX signals on
From: Johannes Sixt
The test case depends on that test-sigchain can commit suicide by a call
to raise(SIGTERM) in a way that run-command.c::wait_or_whine() can detect
as death through a signal. There are no POSIX signals on Windows, and a
sufficiently close emulation is not available in the Micro
22 matches
Mail list logo
