On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Ethan Grammatikidis <[email protected]> wrote: > On 29 Mar 2010, at 00:28, hiro wrote: >> >> Following your logic we must be one of the luckiest mailing list around > > I was speaking of lunix & co, on the basis that given enough additional apps > & things the same problems will arise. > >> We use ls -t. It's better than git for your task. > > > ... > > Surely not. > > ... > > Why didn't I think of that? > > ... > > Oh so if ls -lt in bin you see things grouped... the -l is important.. > yes... Oh when stuff is scattered through bin lib and other dirs you need ls > -lt `{ find * } . Agh! Horrendous way-too-long-to-read output... I can pipe > it into less -S and search. Wait, no less. That's fair enough, I can search > in terminal... no search in terminal. > > Do not want to post "fail, feature needed." No contextual output from diff, > and it would be a weak solution anyway. Perhaps some script to take the > output from ls, pick the timestamp of a specified filename, and output only > lines matching that timestamp. I could write that with only a little pain. > :s Huh, I think we have a solution, but it's not just ls -t. ... And to > simplify: rather than write a script I could ls -l a known file, snarf the > timestamp, and ls -lt `{ find * } | grep <timestamp>. Well, that's bearable. > > I hope my stream of consciousness is readable, it's rather late here. > > Speaking of late, remember you should never let make install run at midnight > (or it breaks the above solution). >
since we are trying so hard to create new problems for Plan 9, should i assume the old ones have all been solved? iru
