On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 3:26 PM, Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 06:20:42PM -0500, Jeff King wrote: >> >>> > In general, I think it is wrong to wait for child processes when a signal >>> > was received. After all, it is the purpose of a (deadly) signal to have the >>> > process go away. There may be programs that know it better, like less, but >>> > git should not attempt to know better in general. >>> > >>> > We do apply some special behavior for certain cases like we do for the >>> > pager. And now the case with aliases is another special situation. The >>> > parent git process only delegates to the child, and as such it is reasonable >>> > that it binds its life time to the first child, which executes the expanded >>> > alias. >>> >>> Yeah, I think I agree. That binding is something you want in many cases, >>> but not necessarily all. The original purpose of clean_on_exit was to >>> create a binding like that, but of course it can be (and with the >>> smudge-filter stuff, arguably has been) used for other cases, too. >>> >>> I'll work up a patch that makes it a separate option, which should be >>> pretty easy. >> >> Yeah, this did turn out to be really easy. I spent most of the time >> trying to explain the issue in the commit message in a sane way. >> Hopefully it didn't end up _too_ long. :) >> >> The interesting bit is in the third one. The first is a necessary >> preparatory step, and the second is a cleanup I noticed in the >> neighborhood. >> >> [1/3]: execv_dashed_external: use child_process struct >> [2/3]: execv_dashed_external: stop exiting with negative code >> [3/3]: execv_dashed_external: wait for child on signal death >> >> git.c | 36 +++++++++++++++--------------------- >> run-command.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ >> run-command.h | 1 + >> 3 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) >> >> -Peff > > I don't see the rest of the patches on the list..? > > Thanks, > Jake They showed up on public inbox so I assume it must be some spam filter on my end.. Hmm, Jake