On 20/07/2020 21:04, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
> On 2020-07-05 12:53, Jonny Grant wrote:
>> Your patch looks great.
>
> Thanks, pushed (with the minor tweak mentioned below) at:
> https://git.sv.gnu.org/cgit/coreutils.git/commit/?id=49bd08aea
>
>> Is it worth clarifying that --kill-after=0s would send the KILL signal
>> immediately after TERM?
>> $ timeout --kill-after=0s 2s du -h
>
> As the signal handler for the regular signal (TERM) does probably not have
> enough time to do anything before being KILLed, this use case would better
> be written as:
>
> $ timeout -s KILL 2s du -h
>
> Not sure this is worth an extra explanation.
>
>> Is it worth rejecting this? At the moment the -k is just ignored.
>> $ timeout -k 2s 0s du -h
>
> Hmm, rejecting is a bit harsh. The question is if this is really
> a problem for the users? I mean once a user knows there is a -k
> option, I would expect that she has read the documentation about
> how to use it.
> It is mentioned both in the Texinfo manual and in the --help output:
>
> A duration of 0 disables the associated timeout.
>
> I squashed in the following little change:
>
> -This option has no effect if @command{timeout}'s duration is 0 and
> therefore
> +This option has no effect if @command{timeout}'s duration is 0 which
> disables the associated timeout.
>
> Have a nice day,
> Berny
Looks great!
Jonny
