Re: [PATCH] t0005: skip signal death exit code test on Windows
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Jun 9, 2013, 20:31 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7vk3m3owk2.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <20130609001845.GC29964@sigill.intra.peff.net>
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.