On 30 August 2013 04:11, Glenn Fowler <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, 30 Aug 2013 04:02:24 +0200 Cedric Blancher wrote: >> On 30 August 2013 03:59, Glenn Fowler <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > On Fri, 30 Aug 2013 01:15:30 +0200 Roland Mainz wrote: >> >> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Glenn Fowler <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> > the AT&T Software Technology ast alpha 2013-08-29 source release >> >> > has been posted to the download site >> >> > http://www.research.att.com/sw/download/alpha/ >> >> > the package names and md5 checksums are >> >> > INIT 132e0403af573fa1cb1e202267fedeb8 >> >> > ast-open 334615fb3a652575106194c281d27b5c >> >> > ast-ksh ebcc56d9ab673aaafbb163d6eee1a93c >> >> > the md5 sums should match the ones listed on the download page >> > >> > well that RELEASE note was optimistic >> > >> > I had it and ls.c over there before I realized that ast ls has not been >> > fts-ized yet >> > it uses the ancient ast pre-fts ftwalk() api > >> 1. We are in alpha mode, right? >> 2. Since we are in 1., could you not just add it *NOW* and let the >> crazy audience which dares enough to use builtin ls; ls -l take their >> chances? :) > > there's more work involved than fts-izing > and there is nothing worse than a busted ls > if a builtin ls screws up it takes the shell with it > so no quick fix here
That's what alpha's are for. Or add a SHOPT_LSBUILTIN for the more (willingly) risk-taking audience. That's reminds me to renew Lionel's SHOPT_EXPERIMENTAL proposal so that new or potentially risky features can be moved earlier into the source than you currently do it. Not all here agree with the current snail's pace of development. Ced -- Cedric Blancher <[email protected]> Institute Pasteur _______________________________________________ ast-developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.research.att.com/mailman/listinfo/ast-developers
