Re: [RFC/PATCH] avoid SIGPIPE warnings for aliases

2014-07-21 Thread mimimimi
-generator.shtml -- View this message in context: http://git.661346.n2.nabble.com/RFC-PATCH-avoid-SIGPIPE-warnings-for-aliases-tp7574160p7615524.html Sent from the git mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in the body of a message

Re: [RFC/PATCH] avoid SIGPIPE warnings for aliases

2013-01-10 Thread Jeff King
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 01:49:41PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: Jeff King p...@peff.net writes: But we still say error: ... died of signal 13, because that comes from inside wait_or_whine. So it is a separate issue whether or not wait_or_whine should be silent on SIGPIPE (we already are

Re: [RFC/PATCH] avoid SIGPIPE warnings for aliases

2013-01-10 Thread Jeff King
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 04:18:44PM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote: Do we know if we are upstream of a pager that reads from us through a pipe (I think we should, especially in a case where we are the one who processed the git -p $alias option)? Is there any other case where we would want

Re: [RFC/PATCH] avoid SIGPIPE warnings for aliases

2013-01-10 Thread Jeff King
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:22:49PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: Jeff King p...@peff.net 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

Re: [RFC/PATCH] avoid SIGPIPE warnings for aliases

2013-01-10 Thread Johannes Sixt
Am 10.01.2013 21:22, schrieb Junio C Hamano: Jeff King p...@peff.net 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.

Re: [RFC/PATCH] avoid SIGPIPE warnings for aliases

2013-01-10 Thread Junio C Hamano
Johannes Sixt j...@kdbg.org writes: 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

Re: [RFC/PATCH] avoid SIGPIPE warnings for aliases

2013-01-09 Thread Junio C Hamano
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes: When git executes an alias that specifies an external command, it will complain if the alias dies due to a signal. This is usually a good thing, as signal deaths are unexpected. However, SIGPIPE is not unexpected for many commands which produce a lot of

Re: [RFC/PATCH] avoid SIGPIPE warnings for aliases

2013-01-09 Thread Jeff King
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 12:48:20PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: $ git lg -p [user hits 'q' to exit pager] error: git lgbase --more-options died of signal 13 fatal: While expanding alias 'lg': 'git lgbase --more-options': Success Many users won't see this, because we execute

Re: [RFC/PATCH] avoid SIGPIPE warnings for aliases

2013-01-09 Thread Junio C Hamano
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes: But we still say error: ... died of signal 13, because that comes from inside wait_or_whine. So it is a separate issue whether or not wait_or_whine should be silent on SIGPIPE (we already are on SIGINT and SIGQUIT, as of some recent patches). The upside is

Re: [RFC/PATCH] avoid SIGPIPE warnings for aliases

2013-01-09 Thread Jonathan Nieder
Junio C Hamano wrote: Jeff King p...@peff.net writes: But we still say error: ... died of signal 13, because that comes from inside wait_or_whine. So it is a separate issue whether or not wait_or_whine should be silent on SIGPIPE (we already are on SIGINT and SIGQUIT, as of some recent

Re: [RFC/PATCH] avoid SIGPIPE warnings for aliases

2013-01-09 Thread Junio C Hamano
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes: I'm not sure whether there are SIGPIPE instances we really don't want to be silent about, though. I suspect not. ;-) Compare http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/2062,

Re: [RFC/PATCH] avoid SIGPIPE warnings for aliases

2013-01-05 Thread Jeff King
On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 02:20:52PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: Jeff King p...@peff.net writes: I have two reservations with this patch: 1. We are ignoring SIGPIPE all the time. For an alias that is calling log, that is fine. But if pack-objects dies on the server side,

Re: [RFC/PATCH] avoid SIGPIPE warnings for aliases

2013-01-04 Thread Johannes Sixt
Am 04.01.2013 13:47, schrieb Jeff King: I have two reservations with this patch: 1. We are ignoring SIGPIPE all the time. For an alias that is calling log, that is fine. But if pack-objects dies on the server side, seeing that it died from SIGPIPE is useful data, and we are

Re: [RFC/PATCH] avoid SIGPIPE warnings for aliases

2013-01-04 Thread Jeff King
On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 05:55:18PM +0100, Johannes Sixt wrote: Am 04.01.2013 13:47, schrieb Jeff King: I have two reservations with this patch: 1. We are ignoring SIGPIPE all the time. For an alias that is calling log, that is fine. But if pack-objects dies on the server side,

Re: [RFC/PATCH] avoid SIGPIPE warnings for aliases

2013-01-04 Thread Junio C Hamano
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes: I have two reservations with this patch: 1. We are ignoring SIGPIPE all the time. For an alias that is calling log, that is fine. But if pack-objects dies on the server side, seeing that it died from SIGPIPE is useful data, and we are