On 12 March 2013 08:25, Enrico Tröger enrico.troeger@uvena.de wrote:
Hey Lex,
did you intentionally answered off-list?
Nah, your mail was to list and cc me, so the "smart" mailer chose to reply to you, and its too early in the morning for me to notice :)
This cced to the list for the record :)
I don't know if anybodys memory is good enough to remember why the comment was thought to be correct (it was 2006 when it was committed).
Perhaps it was a misunderstanding -- signals sent to the parent will hit the child process, but not the other way around. (If it did, kill %1 in your shell
Without having checked the whole history, I'm pretty much sure I wrote the comment and so also chose SIGQUIT. I vaguely remember some issues with the signals sent to the child processes and then Geany suddenly quit because it also received the signal or at least it seemed so to me. Well, it was back in 2006. It might also be that the behaviour I experienced was caused by another bug and I misinterpreted it and wrongly related it to the sent signal. As long as SIGTERM reliably works, I'd be fine with. I'd say now is a good time to check it in since 1.23 is just out and now master is allowed to new cool stuff again :).
Yeh, I nearly committed it directly on that basis, but eventually decided to be my usual cautious self :)
If it helps and no problems are to be expected, why not. As long as the change is not in master, nobody will test it :).
One day someone will re-write Geany's terminate handler to be legal and Geany will do the same :)
Ah nice, you do volunteer for that task!
"Some day" and when we figure out how to safely save a file using only write, not even fwrite is allowed so none of our existing file write methods is allowed. :(
I don't know either :(.
Not forgetting that we can't use g_convert because we don't know what system calls it uses, so its not gonna be easy to save any non-utf-8 encoding. Maybe the config & project files only?
Cheers Lex
Regards, Enrico
-- Get my GPG key from http://www.uvena.de/pub.asc