On 20 April 2011 19:15, John A Meinel <email address hidden> wrote:
> How about we land SIGHUP changes, and just go with it for now. We can
> always open another bug if we need to.
I think you're right: catching sighup is a step forward and will fix
some cases. What I saw before lead me to believe that when the
window's killed ssh may also be killed without us getting a chance to
do anything about it. (We could try to prevent that by eg changing
process group etc, but that may lead to knock-on problems.)
Probably we should just
* merge that branch and close this bug
* reliably release locks server-side over ssh (maybe we do?)
* just cope with stale locks over sftp
On 20 April 2011 19:15, John A Meinel <email address hidden> wrote:
> How about we land SIGHUP changes, and just go with it for now. We can
> always open another bug if we need to.
I think you're right: catching sighup is a step forward and will fix
some cases. What I saw before lead me to believe that when the
window's killed ssh may also be killed without us getting a chance to
do anything about it. (We could try to prevent that by eg changing
process group etc, but that may lead to knock-on problems.)
Probably we should just
* merge that branch and close this bug
* reliably release locks server-side over ssh (maybe we do?)
* just cope with stale locks over sftp
I'll have a look at this tomorrow.