Nicolas Williams wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 02:01:43AM -0800, Peter Memishian wrote: > > > Why so many complains for one simple bug? > > It is not one simple bug, it is the latest in a sequence of bugs related > > [...] > > > > > 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. > > I tend to agree, but the pay-off from switching to ksh93/AST built-ins > in other cases may well make this pain worthwhile. > > sleep(1) was a simple program, a canary in the mine of the core utils > modernization effort, and now we know that there are some pitfalls and > bugs that must be addressed in the process. If that is manageable and > the pay-off worthwhile, then we should keep at it, else we should turn > back. [snip]
IMO it would be nice to have a three-month "moratorim" to give us time to kill all bugs. Please. The existing codebase had 20 years to get mature and we really can't catch-up with that in one or two putbacks. Meem: Is that acceptable for you ? ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 3992797 (;O/ \/ \O;)
