Hello, I for sure hope the proposal gets through.
Best regards, Francky ----- Oorspronkelijk e-mail ----- > Jérémy Compostella wrote: > > OK, I understand. My answers to both questions: > > > > 1. why not do it some other way? > > > > First, it is very convenient to do it that way because it is very > > simple > > and it is more consistent with other commands that already provide > > it: > > > > $ mkdir -p a/b/c d/e > > $ chmod g+w -p a/b/c d/e > > > > IMHO, the way like the one you propose misses the consistency > > point. > > > > Don't misunderstand me, I don't want to force a new feature if > > someone > > has a pertinent argument to oppose to. But this one has already > > been > > proposed by other people and I really think it is worth to have it > > too. > > When a small bash/perl/python script can provide the same > functionality, > that means the proposed feature requires more justification. > > By your arguments, chown, chgrp and chcon should also support this > new option. > Sorry, but "consistency" and "convenience" are not sufficient, here. > It's just as convenient to use a small script on those rare occasions > that one requires this behavior. > > Sorry to reject the idea, but if we were to accept new options too > easily > many of the coreutils programs would be larger and harder to > maintain, > for relatively little added value. Part of our job as maintainers is > to ensure that each new feature really is well justified. > > > 2. Is this too specialized to merit an option? > > > > I don't think so. This option already exists for other commands > > like > > `mkdir' and `cp' to deserve the same purpose. >
