Dropped unread state
dave at boostpro.com
Wed Sep 28 18:31:27 BST 2011
on Wed Sep 28 2011, Sebastian Spaeth <Sebastian-AT-SSpaeth.de> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 09:52:40 -0400, Dave Abrahams <dave at boostpro.com> wrote:
> Non-text part: multipart/mixed
>> on Fri Dec 31 1999, Dave Abrahams <dave-AT-boostpro.com> wrote:
>> > So maybe offlineimap should also respond to SIGTERM as though it were
>> > SIGUSR2?
> Thanks for the patch, I have pushed it into my branch feature/SIGTERM
> for now. I don't want to introduce changed behavior this close before
> the release of a new stable version. And changing behavior it
> does. While SIGTERM now immediately "Terminates...", your patch
> introduced a big delay (ie finish the current round of sync before
> I will push your push right after the release I think, and then work on
> refining the behavior to make SIGTERM actually quit ASAP (but cleanly)
> even without finishing a round of syncs.
> Does that sound sensible?
Sure, whatever you think best, as long as it's clean :-). Remember, as
it says on one of OLI's sites, "offlineimap is SAFE"... The faster
the better, actually, since launchd will kill it if it doesn't happen
soon enough (defaults to 20 seconds).
> Thanks for the contribution, happy to take it.
More information about the OfflineIMAP-project