From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2013 20:31:41 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] t0005: skip signal death exit code test on Windows
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.