From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Markus Elfring Subject: Re: Fix signal handler Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:24:43 +0100 Message-ID: <4B69A34B.7010309@web.de> References: <4B684F5F.7020409@web.de> <20100203102915.GA25486@coredump.intra.peff.net> <4B696447.10803@web.de> <201002031412.53195.trast@student.ethz.ch> <4B699A45.7000905@web.de> <4B699C08.50400@op5.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Thomas Rast , Jeff King , git@vger.kernel.org To: Andreas Ericsson X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Feb 03 17:25:01 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nci29-0003F7-KS for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:24:53 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932525Ab0BCQYs (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Feb 2010 11:24:48 -0500 Received: from fmmailgate02.web.de ([217.72.192.227]:50380 "EHLO fmmailgate02.web.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932460Ab0BCQYr (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Feb 2010 11:24:47 -0500 Received: from smtp05.web.de (fmsmtp05.dlan.cinetic.de [172.20.4.166]) by fmmailgate02.web.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8858B14D0422C; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 17:24:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from [78.54.162.123] (helo=[192.168.1.202]) by smtp05.web.de with asmtp (WEB.DE 4.110 #314) id 1Nci20-00047m-00; Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:24:45 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; de; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091130 SUSE/3.0.0-1.1.1 Thunderbird/3.0 In-Reply-To: <4B699C08.50400@op5.se> X-Sender: Markus.Elfring@web.de X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+Xd2TxDlHXzUcFekmXAnkBts/N0WN4zhZRG1/f ksOwGwtdcXb4Z1u79eBLq0Um8A0kpkw8+0q4ViDjepgrwmfr93 kRltlUUsyPOP2P3+Ae0A== Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: > > The general feeling on this list is that patches are listened to, no > matter how foul they are, and you will get a (hopefully) polite > rejection if it is considered useless because it addresses a problem > that doesn't exist. > I hope that a healthy balance will be found between correct software design, development and quick "hacking". There might also be more efforts if too many patches will be rejected just because the suggested and planned changes were not discussed before. Would you like to get an acknowledgement for signal handler problems from people in other discussion groups like "comp.programming.threads"? Regards, Markus