From: Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 05:30:51 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] t0005: skip signal death exit code test on Windows
Message-ID: <51B5648B.7020703@viscovery.net>
In-Reply-To: <7vk3m3owk2.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

Am 6/9/2013 22:31, schrieb Junio C Hamano:
> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
>> I'm a little negative on handling just SIGTERM. That would make the test
>> pass, but does it really address the overall issue? To me, the
>> usefulness is having exit values with consistent meanings.
> 
> Yes.  Unless the goal is to give Windows port pratically the same
> signal semantics as ports on other platforms, I do not think special
> casing SIGTERM (unless it is a very common signal on Windows and
> others are unlikely to be useful) buys us much.

I'm thinking the same. And, no, SIGTERM is not very common on Windows.

-- Hannes