Re: [PATCH] t0005: skip signal death exit code test on Windows

> 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.
>