From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 16:31:00 GMT
Subject: [PATCH 0/5] ignore SIGINT while editor runs
Message-ID: <20121111163100.GB13188@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <20121111154846.GA13188@sigill.intra.peff.net>

On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 10:48:46AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:

> Silly me. When I thought through the impact of Paul's patch, I knew that
> we would notice signal death of the editor. But I totally forgot to
> consider that the blocked signal is inherited by the child process. I
> think we just need to move the signal() call to after we've forked. Like
> this (on top of Paul's patch):
> [...]
> Note that this will give you a slightly verbose message from git.
> Potentially we could notice editor death due to SIGINT and suppress the
> message, under the assumption that the user hit ^C and does not need to
> be told.

Here's a series that I think should resolve the situation for everybody.

  [1/5]: launch_editor: refactor to use start/finish_command

The cleanup I sent out a few minutes ago.

  [2/5]: launch_editor: ignore SIGINT while the editor has control

Paul's patch rebased on my 1/5.

  [3/5]: run-command: drop silent_exec_failure arg from wait_or_whine
  [4/5]: run-command: do not warn about child death by SIGINT
  [5/5]: launch_editor: propagate SIGINT from editor to git

Act more like current git when the editor dies from SIGINT.

-Peff