Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes: > I don't necessarily agree, though, that the timing of filter-process > cleanup needs to be part of the public interface. So in your list: > >> 3) Git waits until the filter process finishes. > > That seems simple and elegant, but I can think of reasons we might not > want to wait (e.g., if the filter has to do some maintenance task and > does not the user to have to wait). > > OTOH, we already face this in git, and we solve it by explicitly > backgrounding the maintenance task (i.e., auto-gc). So one could argue > that it is the responsibility of the filter process to manage its own > processes. It certainly makes the interaction with git simpler.
Yup, that summarizes my thinking a lot better than I managed to do in the previous message.
