On Wed, Feb 03 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Getting back to the point, whatever anyone thinks of returning SIGHUP as >> we do now or not, I think it's bonkers to ignore SIGHUP and *then* >> return a non-zero *only in the non-atexit case*. >> >> That just means that if you do have a broken pager you're going to get >> flaky exits depending on the state of our flushed buffers, who's going >> to be helped by such a fickle exit code? >> >> So if we're going to change the behavior to not return SIGHUP, and don't >> want to refactor our entire atexit() handling in #2 to be guaranteed to >> pass down the pager's exit code, I don't see how anything except the >> approach of just exit(0) in that case makes sense, which is what Denton >> Liu's patch initially suggested doing. > > Then we are on the same page (assuming that all your HUPs are > PIPEs) Yes, sorry, PBCAK :)
