Sure. I'll provide the git diff tonight along with some (hopefully complete)subset of the the requested information.
I'm more than willing to assign copyright. Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 25, 2018, at 3:42 PM, Eric Blake <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 01/25/2018 12:11 PM, Daniel Gall wrote: >> It is interestingly me that POSIX specifies groups but does not specify that >> reporting tools will contemplate sub-aggregating output by group. Please >> consider the following diff patch to du.c or something like it. I of course >> checked your list of rejected features for du and found nothing remotely >> similar in the list. > > Thanks for the submission. > >> >> Thank you >> >> Dan. >> >> A diff patch against du from coreutils 8.26: >> >> coreutils-8.26> !diff >> diff src/du.c src/du.c.bak >> 38d37 >> < #include "grp.h" > > Unfortunately, 'ed script' diffs are unusable; they are too easy to > break, especially if other parts of the file have changed in the > meantime. We prefer 'git diff' output against the latest coreutils.git, > but any program which can produce unified diffs (diff -u) is better than > an ed script diff. > > A feature addition requires documentation, NEWS update, and preferably > testsuite additions to be complete (although if the maintainers like the > feature idea enough, others may be willing to help you with those parts). > > If nothing else, could you at least include an example command-line > usage with your new option and the new output it produces? > > Also, as a new feature, and given the length of your patch, it would be > best to have copyright assignment in place; is that something you are > willing to do? > > -- > Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer > Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3266 > Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org >
