Re: [announce] execline-2.5.0.0

[Guillermo]

2018-04-02 7:39 GMT-03:00 Laurent Bercot:
>
>  User reports have come in by the hundreds and they are almost
> unanimous (sorry, Colin): they don't like the 2.4.0.0 change,
> pretending it hurts readability (as if), and writability too,
> of execline scripts. (What? People were actually writing execline
> scripts? Why haven't I heard of them before yesterday?)
>  They want a revert to the old syntax.
>
>  Users. They never know what they want.

My reaction:

1) "Oh, an announcement!" (timezone magic made this happen on Saturday for me)
2) "Wait, what? Whaaat?!"
3) All of this chaotically over a short period of time:
  * "How is something like this execline-2.4.0.0 and not execline-3.0.0.0?"
  * "Wait, is s6-linux-init still going to work? Did I miss a new
s6-linux-init release announcement?" (I don't know why my brains
focused on s6-linux-init instead of the major breakage of s6 and s6-rc
that not retaining the old names somehow would have produced)
  * "Wait, did he rename the C source files too? Like
src/execline/=.c, src/execline/;.c, etc.?"
  * "Wait, execline commands exist as executable files in the
filesystem, are the files going to actually have those names? Like
'test' and '['? That new makefile is going to be quite interesting..."
  * "Wait, are programs still going to be callable by their old names?"
- "How? Compatilibity symlinks? Didn't he dislike multiple
personality binaries? Is execlineb going to implement the conversion
as part of its parsing?" (the latter could actually work?)
- "Does every execline script need to be rewritten now? How many
of those are out there already?"
  * "Hmmm, using execline commands from a shell is going to be hell
now with all that character escaping."
  * "Well, on the other hand, maybe no more ImageMagick-like name collisions..."
  * "Let's see how many programs kept their names. Huh? ímport is still here?"
4) "I definitely have to take a closer look now."
5) "Oh."

G.

Re: [announce] execline-2.5.0.0

[Alex Efros]

Hi!

On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 12:06:05PM +, John O'Meara wrote:
> While I initially didn't like the 2.4 name changes, perhaps I (and others)

I believe 2.4 was just 1st April's joke.

-- 
WBR, Alex.

Re: [announce] execline-2.5.0.0

[John O'Meara]

On Mon, Apr 2, 2018, 8:06 AM John O'Meara  wrote:

> While I initially didn't like the 2.4 name changes, perhaps I (and others)
> just need tinge to get used too it.


that should have been "time", not "tinge". The perils of writing email on a
phone :-(

Perhaps it would be useful to have a period of time where the old names are
> used for the programs and the new names are symlinks to the old names?
> Existing scripts would still work while we experiment with the new naming
> convention.
>
> --
> John O'Meara
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018, 6:39 AM Laurent Bercot 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>   Hello,
>>   execline-2.5.0.0 is out.
>>
>>   It is with a very heavy heart that I must do this release.
>>   User reports have come in by the hundreds and they are almost
>> unanimous (sorry, Colin): they don't like the 2.4.0.0 change,
>> pretending it hurts readability (as if), and writability too,
>> of execline scripts. (What? People were actually writing execline
>> scripts? Why haven't I heard of them before yesterday?)
>>   They want a revert to the old syntax.
>>
>>   Users. They never know what they want. They can't be happy. Give them
>> what they ask for and they immediately start complaining about the
>> opposite of what they were complaining before. They're a plague on
>> software authors everywhere. I swear, computer programming would be
>> so much easier if there were no users at all!
>>
>>   But since programming is about being a slave to your users, I hear
>> them, and I submit. I'm reverting the change introduced in 2.4.0.0.
>> execline commands will keep the names they had in 2.3.0.4 and previous
>> versions.
>>
>>   I'm such a misunderstood genius.
>>
>>   The main difference between 2.3.0.4 and 2.5.0.0, though, is that
>> the "import" command has been removed. From 2.5.0.0 on, execline and
>> ImageMagick should not conflict anymore. Make sure your execline
>> scripts have been converted to using "importas"!
>>
>>   https://skarnet.org/software/execline/
>>   git://git.skarnet.org/execline
>>
>>   Enjoy,
>>   Bug-reports welcome.
>>
>> --
>>   Laurent
>>
>>

Re: [announce] execline-2.5.0.0

[John O'Meara]

While I initially didn't like the 2.4 name changes, perhaps I (and others)
just need tinge to get used too it. Perhaps it would be useful to have a
period of time where the old names are used for the programs and the new
names are symlinks to the old names? Existing scripts would still work
while we experiment with the new naming convention.

-- 
John O'Meara

On Mon, Apr 2, 2018, 6:39 AM Laurent Bercot  wrote:

>
>   Hello,
>   execline-2.5.0.0 is out.
>
>   It is with a very heavy heart that I must do this release.
>   User reports have come in by the hundreds and they are almost
> unanimous (sorry, Colin): they don't like the 2.4.0.0 change,
> pretending it hurts readability (as if), and writability too,
> of execline scripts. (What? People were actually writing execline
> scripts? Why haven't I heard of them before yesterday?)
>   They want a revert to the old syntax.
>
>   Users. They never know what they want. They can't be happy. Give them
> what they ask for and they immediately start complaining about the
> opposite of what they were complaining before. They're a plague on
> software authors everywhere. I swear, computer programming would be
> so much easier if there were no users at all!
>
>   But since programming is about being a slave to your users, I hear
> them, and I submit. I'm reverting the change introduced in 2.4.0.0.
> execline commands will keep the names they had in 2.3.0.4 and previous
> versions.
>
>   I'm such a misunderstood genius.
>
>   The main difference between 2.3.0.4 and 2.5.0.0, though, is that
> the "import" command has been removed. From 2.5.0.0 on, execline and
> ImageMagick should not conflict anymore. Make sure your execline
> scripts have been converted to using "importas"!
>
>   https://skarnet.org/software/execline/
>   git://git.skarnet.org/execline
>
>   Enjoy,
>   Bug-reports welcome.
>
> --
>   Laurent
>
>

[announce] execline-2.5.0.0

[Laurent Bercot]

 Hello,
 execline-2.5.0.0 is out.

 It is with a very heavy heart that I must do this release.
 User reports have come in by the hundreds and they are almost
unanimous (sorry, Colin): they don't like the 2.4.0.0 change,
pretending it hurts readability (as if), and writability too,
of execline scripts. (What? People were actually writing execline
scripts? Why haven't I heard of them before yesterday?)
 They want a revert to the old syntax.

 Users. They never know what they want. They can't be happy. Give them
what they ask for and they immediately start complaining about the
opposite of what they were complaining before. They're a plague on
software authors everywhere. I swear, computer programming would be
so much easier if there were no users at all!

 But since programming is about being a slave to your users, I hear
them, and I submit. I'm reverting the change introduced in 2.4.0.0.
execline commands will keep the names they had in 2.3.0.4 and previous
versions.

 I'm such a misunderstood genius.

 The main difference between 2.3.0.4 and 2.5.0.0, though, is that
the "import" command has been removed. From 2.5.0.0 on, execline and
ImageMagick should not conflict anymore. Make sure your execline
scripts have been converted to using "importas"!

 https://skarnet.org/software/execline/
 git://git.skarnet.org/execline

 Enjoy,
 Bug-reports welcome.

--
 Laurent