"Phillip Wood via GitGitGadget" [off-list ref] writes:
[3] This is really a work-around for not moving the child into its own
process group and changing the foreground process group of the
controlling terminal.
I am puzzled, as I somehow thought that "does the user conceive a
subprocess as external and different-from-git entity, or is it
merely an implementation detail? many use of subprocesses in our
codebase, it is the latter." from Peff was a good argument against
such isolation between spawning "git" and spawned subprocesses.
On 08/09/2023 16:42, Junio C Hamano wrote:
"Phillip Wood via GitGitGadget" [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
[3] This is really a work-around for not moving the child into its own
process group and changing the foreground process group of the
controlling terminal.
I am puzzled, as I somehow thought that "does the user conceive a
subprocess as external and different-from-git entity, or is it
merely an implementation detail? many use of subprocesses in our
codebase, it is the latter." from Peff was a good argument against
such isolation between spawning "git" and spawned subprocesses.
It is and in those cases we do not ignore SIGINT and SIGQUIT in the
parent when we fork the subprocess. What I was trying to say is that in
the few cases where we do ignore SIGINT and SIGQUIT in the parent when
we fork a subprocess we're working round the child being in the same
process group at the parent.
Best Wishes
Phillip