Raphael Clifford wrote: > Yes http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2006-06/msg00211.html > in particular is pretty much exactly the same feature request. > > What is the current thinking on this?
uniq's -k is still something we'd like. >> uniq: missing option -W / --check-fields=N >> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2006-06/msg00168.html I glanced through most of that thread, and the guidance is still valid. If you are interested, be sure to start the copyright assignment paperwork: http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/coreutils.git/tree/HACKING#n327 copyright and to read/follow the other guidelines in HACKING. 2nd most important: to save yourself the pain of reworking big chunks of code, and to keep review request size manageable, I suggest you keep the mailing list in the loop on what you're doing/planning.
