On 11/11/2011 10:36 AM, Eric Blake wrote: > Are you proposing that --block-size keep the current behavior, and that > -k no longer be a synonym for --block-size=1k but instead becomes a new > long option? > > Makes sense to me
That sort of thing makes sense to me too. I assume --block-size should silently override -k if both options are specified (in either order)? Does -k need a long-named option?
