Re: [PATCH] Replacement for the sigs_to_ignore hack in timeout.c

[Giuseppe Scrivano]

Hello,

Jim Meyering <address@hidden> writes:

> Giuseppe,
>
> Perhaps you misunderstood?
> Eric proposed that idea and I addressed the reply above to him.
> He then replied that he would indeed like to implement it.

Sorry, I thought it was directed to both.

> Since you have spent time working on it, in spite of that,
> we are now in a bind.

If it could be "boring" task for somebody already well introduced in
coreutils, it was a good occasion for me to familiarize with this
project.  In case the patch will not be accepted I don't have any
regrets for the time I spent on it.

>   - you don't have a copyright assignment on file for coreutils,
>     and those take at least 2-3 weeks to process.  So even if we
>     were to use your work, we'd have to wait.

I know, last time it took more than one month.

>   - it is considered poor form to jump in and write/submit a patch
>     like that, when someone else is obviously planning to do the
>     same thing.

I got his answer after I submitted the patch.  In the other case I think
I was showing my patch just to him not on the ML.
While the patch length is not trivial, the changes introduced by this
patch are very trivial.  It could be done easily with
s/signal/my_signal_wrapper/ but IMHO `signal' calls in coreutils are not
so many to require a wrapper around `sigaction'.

> If you'd like to contribute, please coordinate, especially if
> it's a task that's being actively discussed.

I will look more in detail at this task as soon as possible and inform
you if I will work on it.

Regards,
Giuseppe Scrivano