Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > If we assume that most people would prefer this "wait until the hook has > died" behavior, I think this shouldn't have any unwanted secondary > effects. I'm on the fence on whether it's what most people would want or > not (I guess most people don't care either way, because their scripts > don't ignore SIGINT). Yeah, and imagining why they deliberately ignore INT (i.e. "because I want this hook not be interrupted and run to its completion") does not help guess if they want git to wait for hook's completion or just go ahead and die of its own signal death. We could timeout the waiting and kill such a child forcibly, and that may avoid these hook script that ignore INT to hang around, but I do not know if that is desirable.
