Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 01/15/2010 05:05 PM, Adam Butcher wrote:
If you're on a posix-compatible have you tried using SIGQUIT (CTRL-\
or CTRL-4) instead of SIGINT?
>>> Or kill -9 of course, but beware; Vincent LeFevre reported sandboxes
>>> corrupted beyond anything 'svn cleanup'
On 01/15/2010 05:05 PM, Adam Butcher wrote:
>>> If you're on a posix-compatible have you tried using SIGQUIT (CTRL-\ or
>>> CTRL-4) instead of SIGINT?
>>>
>> Or kill -9 of course, but beware; Vincent LeFevre reported sandboxes
>> corrupted beyond anything 'svn cleanup' could repair in one
On Fri, January 15, 2010 3:57 pm, Dave Korn wrote:
> Adam Butcher wrote:
>> On Fri, January 15, 2010 1:43 pm, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>>> I mean, why a well designed application should refuse to listen to ctrl-c
>>> when something goes wrong? Why every time for some reason it gets stuck,
>>> I have to
Paul Koning wrote:
>> Paolo Carlini wrote:
>> guaranteeing atomicity/preventing corrupted sandbox?
>
> Not just crude, but wrong. You can't get atomicity (or rather,
> transactional integrity) that way, because blocking ^C doesn't block
> SIGKILL, or panics, or power failures, or (in the case of
Adam Butcher wrote:
> On Fri, January 15, 2010 1:43 pm, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>> I mean, why a well designed application should refuse to listen to ctrl-c
>> when something goes wrong? Why every time for some reason it gets stuck,
>> I have to kill it from another shell? That's definitely annoying.
> Paolo Carlini wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I mean, why a well designed application should refuse to listen to
> > ctrl-c when something goes wrong? Why every time for some reason it
> gets
> > stuck, I have to kill it from another shell? That's definitely
> annoying.
> >
> > Paolo.
> ...
> Looks like
Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I mean, why a well designed application should refuse to listen to
> ctrl-c when something goes wrong? Why every time for some reason it gets
> stuck, I have to kill it from another shell? That's definitely annoying.
>
> Paolo.
Hmm, this is also Debian bug #50222
On Fri, January 15, 2010 1:43 pm, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>
> I mean, why a well designed application should refuse to listen to
> ctrl-c when something goes wrong? Why every time for some reason it gets
> stuck, I have to kill it from another shell? That's definitely annoying.
>
If you're on a posix-
