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 <ska-skaw...@skarnet.org> 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
>
>

Reply via email to