> In particular, it is not always possible for HQ to ensure that when a process that spawns tasks (called worker) quits unexpectedly (e.g. when it receives SIGK

> In particular, it is not always possible for HQ to ensure that when a process that spawns tasks (called worker) quits unexpectedly (e.g. when it receives SIGKILL), its spawned tasks will be cleaned up. I have no clue about HyperQueue architecture, but is this really a problem? Normally if the main process of service exits then systemd will clean up the children. Why does HyperQueue need to implement it's own cleanup?