> Why so many complains for one simple bug? It is not one simple bug, it is the latest in a sequence of bugs related to this change. There is a case to be made that some of these bugs could have been caught prior to integration given more testing, such as 6790805 and 6793120. There were also more subtle bugs (such as 6805584) that I doubt we would've caught. There are others that have not yet been root-caused, such as 6800517. In the end, it is all time lost :-/
> Maybe wrong decision, maybe good (less code duplicity). There are lots of ways to share code. FWIW, in the case of sleep, there wasn't a whole lot to share -- the venerable old binary was all of 94 lines of source code, including comments. Sure, it doesn't have all sorts of bells and whistles, but it also just worked and got out of your way, which is what a simple, core utility should do. To be clear, I am not opposed to the idea of sharing code -- far from it. I am also not opposed to the idea of using the AST codebase to subsume grotty commands that are complex or have conformance/maintenance issues. However, sleep was simple and harmless, and last required a change in 1996, hence my opposition. -- meem
