[PATCH] silent job monitor when 'set +m'

Chet, The man page mentioned that 'set -m' should print 'a line containing their status upon their completion' ... which should imply 'set +m' should NOT print the status. Attached is a patch to 'silent' bash so that it won't print the status when 'Monitor mode' is off (set +m). If this i

Re: [PATCH] silent job monitor when 'set +m'

Jeff Chua schrieb: > The man page mentioned that 'set -m' should print 'a line containing > their status upon their completion' ... which should imply 'set +m' > should NOT print the status. > > Attached is a patch to 'silent' bash so that it won't print the status > when 'Monitor mode' is off (s

Re: [PATCH] silent job monitor when 'set +m'

On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Jan Schampera wrote: > A workaround is to diswon the monster. But yes, I also stumbled over > this once. See > http://bash-hackers.org/wiki/doku.php/snipplets/kill_bg_job_without_message > "disown"... that's new to me. Nice. At least it's an alternative to "set +m

Re: [PATCH] silent job monitor when 'set +m'

Jeff Chua wrote: > > Chet, > > The man page mentioned that 'set -m' should print 'a line containing > their status upon their completion' ... which should imply 'set +m' > should NOT print the status. I'm confused about the circumstances you used to trigger this behavior, since the code fragment

Re: [PATCH] silent job monitor when 'set +m'

On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 5:25 AM, Chet Ramey wrote: > > Are you saying you ran a script in which you enabled job > control, ran a job, turned job control off, then killed the job? > No, I didn't turn off job control. I use "set +m" to turn of monitoring only because I don't want to see any message

Re: [PATCH] silent job monitor when 'set +m'

Jeff Chua wrote: > > > On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 5:25 AM, Chet Ramey > wrote: > > > Are you saying you ran a script in which you enabled job > control, ran a job, turned job control off, then killed the job? > > > No, I didn't turn off job control. I use "set