Re: [PATCH] t0005: skip signal death exit code test on Windows

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> 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 semantics as ports on other platforms, I do not think special
casing SIGTERM (unless it is a very common signal on Windows and
others are unlikely to be useful) buys us much.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]