On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 02:55:06PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > If we ensure that the process is still running, then such a check is > a good belt-and-suspenders way to catch a breakage in the mechanism > we choose to ensure it. So probably we can require that the kill in > the "when finished" part to actually send a signal to a process that > is still running. > > Is there an equivalent to pause(2) available to shell scripts? I > really hate a single "sleep 3600" or anything with a magic number. I think it is usually spelled "read <some-fifo", but we can't use FIFOs here because Windows doesn't have them. You could probably do something with "read <&9" and set up descriptor 9 in the test code. But frankly, that gets complex pretty quickly, as you have to background things. This minor issue isn't worth it. Just bumping the sleep to 3600 makes the raciness problem go away, and everything works in practice. That's probably good enough for our purposes. -Peff